THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20891 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner states that himself and his family members have purchased Acs.3.50 cents of land in Survey No.99/F2 of Mamidalpalli Village, Kurnool District, through various sale deeds of the years 1985, 1986 and 1997. He intended to sell his share of the land and accordingly approached the first respondent with a request to furnish the necessary details as to stamp duty, registration charges, etc. The first respondent had issued an endorsement, dated 02.09.2008, informing the petitioner that the lands in Survey No.99/F2, admeasuring Acs.7.60 cents, is notified as poramboke (Government land) by the Tahsildar, Kunool District, the second respondent herein and in that view of the matter, no documents would be registered in respect of that land. The petitioner challenges the said endorsement. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that his vendor Sri B.Lakshman Singh, filed O.S.No.47 of 1972 in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Kurnool against the then Tahsildar, Kurnool District for the relief of declaration of title in respect of the land in Survey No.99/F2 and that the suit was decreed through judgment, dated 26.07.1973. He further contends that the judgment has become final and in that view of the matter, it is not open to the second respondent to claim title over the land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It is true that with the introduction of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, it becomes impermissible for a registering authority to admit documents for registration in respect of the lands that are covered by clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) thereof. One such category is the lands that are owned by the State or the Central Governments. The second respondent claims that the land in Survey No.99/F2 belongs to the State Government. Even assuming that the entries in the revenue records suggest that the land belongs to the Government, with the decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.47 of 1972, the entries virtually become irrelevant. The second respondent was very much party to the suit and the decree for declaration of title was passed in favour of the vendor of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement is set aside. The first respondent is directed to receive the documents that may be submitted by the petitioner in relation to the land in Survey No.99/F2 for registration and process the same in accordance with law without treating the same as Government property. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:04.03.2009 kdl