IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 24768 of 2008 Between: 1 C.Easwarappa S/o Late Nagendrappa, Hindu 527 D BHEL R.C Puram Hyderabad 2 C.Karibasaiah S/o Late Nagendrappa, Hindu 527 D BHEL R.C Puram Hyderabad 3 C.Basamma S/o Late Nagendrappa, Hindu 527 D BHEL R.C Puram Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector Anantapur District 2 The Sub Registrar Gooty Anantapur District 3 The Tahasildar Gooty Mandal Gooty Anantapur District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in directing the 2nd respondent to not allow sale deed in respect of Sy No.425 A admeasuring Ac 1-55 cents 425-B admeasuring Ac 4-66 cents and Sy No.426 admeasuring Ac 1-66 cents of Gooty (V) by his proceedings dt 12-9-2008 in Rc No.D4/4766/2006 as illegal lands to an extent of Ac 1-15 cents belonging to 1st petitioner Ac 1-15 cents belonging to 2nd petitioner and Ac 1-19 cents belonging to 3rd petitioner in S.Y No.425-B of Gooty (V) as and when the documents are presented by the petitioner herein for registration without reference to the proceedings dt 12-9-2008 issued in Rc No.D4/4766/2006 in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} O R D E R:- This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent-District Collector in directing the 2nd respondent-Sub-Registrar not to allow any sale deed in respect of the petitioners’ lands in S.No.425-A admeasuring Ac.1.55 cents and S.No.425-B admeasuring Ac.4.66 cents and S.No.426 admeasuring Ac.1.66 cents situated in Gooty village by his proceedings dated 12.9.2008, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith register the documents without reference to the proceedings dated 12.9.2008. The petitioners assert that they are the owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.1.55 cents in S.No.425-A, Ac.4.66 cents in S.No.425-B and the land admeasuring Ac.1.66 cents in S.No.426 respectively, situated in Gooty Revenue village and Mandal, Anantapur District. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that when they approached the 2nd respondent-Sub-Registrar for registration of sale deeds in favour of third parties in respect of the lands in question, the 2nd respondent refused to register the documents on the ground that the 1st respondent-District Collector issued a Communication dated 12.9.2008 directing him not to allow registration of any sale deed in respect of the petitioners’ lands. Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. From a perusal of the material placed on record it is evident that one C.Veerabhadrappa ﬁled W.P.No.21189 of 2008 challenging the impugned proceedings dated 12.9.2008 issued by the 1st respondent-District Collector, and this Court, upon considering the rival arguments, allowed the writ petition holding to the following effect: “Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted and in my view rightly that respondent Nos.1 and 3 have absolutely no jurisdiction to address such a letter to respondent No.2. Even a direction under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 can be given only in cases where a notiﬁcation was issued by the State Government including therein the lands, which are prohibited from being registered. A perusal of the impugned letter does not suggest that any such notiﬁcation in respect of the land in question is issued and in existence. In view of the same, the impugned letter suﬀers from legal inﬁrmity and jurisdictional error and the same is accordingly set aside leaving respondent No.2 free to register the document presented by the petitioner;” Having regard to the fact that the present writ petition is also ﬁled questioning the very same impugned order and as agreed to by the learned counsel for both the parties that this writ petition may be allowed in terms of the order dated 26.9.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21189 of 2008, this writ petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings are hereby set aside, and the 2nd respondent is directed to register the documents presented by the petitioner, if they are otherwise in order, in accordance with law. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 12th November, 2008 bcj