THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 5224 of 2006 DATED: 24.03.2006 BETWEEN: Gorle Venki Naidu and another .. Petitioners And The Mandal Revenue Officer and another ..Respondents THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 5224 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioners’ substantive grievance is that at the instance of the first respondent, the second respondent, without any authority of law or power, has refused to receive the document presented by them for registration in respect of properties in Survey No.6 of Veduruwada Village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioners also allege that the first respondent has been obstructing them from entering into their lands and undertaking work including levelling and had issued a notice dated 10.03.2006 directing that the ryots in Veduruwada Village should not undertake any levelling of land and had directing them to attend an enquiry with record and proof of their title and is threatening to seize the machinery and take action. If the petitioners have any grievance as to the action of the first respondent, they are at liberty to file a police complaint against the first respondent or to seek injunctive relief against him or even seek his prosecution by seeking sanction from the appropriate authorities for abuse of the process of law and without any authority of law. Insofar as the second respondent is concerned, he is a statutory authority ordained by the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short “the Act”) to effect registration/public verification of all documents presented to him, if they are otherwise in order. Earlier there was a provision, Section 22-A of the Act, which enables the Government to issue a prohibitory order prohibiting the registration of certain notified lands. The said provision has been declared unconstitutional by this Court following the ratio of the Supreme Court in STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS v BASANT NAHATA. There is therefore, no valid notification issued in exercise of a power referable to the provisions of Section 22-A of the Act. Since the said Act has been declared unconstitutional, no authority has any power or jurisdiction to direct or interfere with the performance of statutory obligations by the second respondent. In fact, it is open to the second respondent to complain against any direction issued by an extraneous authority interfering with his statutory and discretionary power or obstructing his statutory functions. The second respondent could even initiate prosecution of any authority interfering with his statutory functions, or with the discharge of official duties by a public servant. The complaint of the petitioners is that the second respondent is willing to submit to any directions by any and every authority including the first respondent. As the second respondent is obligated in law to discharge his statutory functions without subjecting himself to extraneous pressures including unauthorized directions issued by the first respondent, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider any document presented by the petitioners for registration of lands in Survey No.6 of Veduruwada Village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and process the same, if otherwise in order and if the petitioners have complied with all statutory requirements for considering such registration, and he shall register the documents in accordance with law. At any rate the second respondent shall pass a written order and communicate the same to the petitioners. In case the second respondent itself is disinclined to register the document for any reason, he should record reasons for the refusal of registration and intimate the same within 48 hours from the date of presentation of the document for registration to the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated:24-03-2006 kvrm