THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.C.No.1562 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners intended to purchase a piece of land in Sy.No.219/2 of Nemoragomala Village from Dheeravatha Thavru, and others. Alleging that their document is not being entertained by the Sub-Registrar, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District, the respondent herein, they filed W.P.No.8368 of 2009. The petition was disposed of on 22.04.2009 directing that in case, no prohibition exists vis-à-vis the land, the document shall be registered within a period of four weeks and for any reason, the document is not registered, the same shall be communicated to the petitioners within that time. The petitioners state that when they submitted the document for registration, the respondent returned it with an endorsement stating that it cannot be registered in view of the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The petitioners submit that the same amounts to contempt of Court. Respondent filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that the District Collector, Nalgonda, issued proceedings, dated 08.01.2008, certifying that the land in Sy.No.219/2 was assigned to landless poor and in that matter, alienation thereof is prohibited. Heard Sri M.L.Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. This Court did not issue any specific direction to the respondent to register and release the document. Option was given to him either to register the document or to communicate the reasons for not registering it depending on the relevant facts. The petitioners cited two instances of registration of document in relation to the very property based upon the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 10.07.2009. Much would depend upon the perspective of registration of the land. In case, the reasons communicated to the petitioners by the respondent are not convincing or contrary to the record, the petitioners can certainly canvass their remedies before appropriate forum. Hence, the Contempt Case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioners to challenge the communication given to them by the respondent by filing a writ petition or by availing other remedies. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 03.12.2010 sj