IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 203 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 15971 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Collecter, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Champapet, Ranga Reddy District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND K.Venkat Reddy, S/o K.Ram Chandra Reddy, R/o H.No.7-97/3, Maruthinagar, Santhoshnagar, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.NARASIMHA REDDY The Court made the following : . HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 203 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari). This appeal is preferred by the appellants against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No:15971 of 2001 on 15.10.2001. The respondent herein is the writ petitioner who has filed the writ petition seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing letter No:LP2/5363/2000, dated 15.9.2000 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in order No:1/01,dated 9.4.2001 refusing to register the document presented by the petitioner for purchasing the plot bearing No:92 admeasuring 300 square yards situated in S.No:60/E (Old survey No:60) at ward No:8, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondent to forthwith receive and register documents presented by the petitioner for purchase of the above said plot. The learned single Judge having observed that it is not open for the respondents to pre empt the registration of the document and therefore, until and unless such a notification is issued, the respondents are not justified in withholding the registration, if the document is otherwise in order and the refusal to register the document on the premise of issuance of notification under section 22 A of the Act is held to be illegal by this Court in W.P.No:4143 of 2000, dated 6.8.2001, allowed the writ petition setting aside the order impugned therein. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is preferred by the respondents-appellants. Heard and perused the entire material available on record. When this matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned G.P for revenue as to the notification issued under section 22A of the Act. It is further submitted that in view of the said notification, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and thereby, it has become infructuous. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that liberty may be granted to question the notification under section 22A of the Act. Accordingly, writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned single Judge. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the writ petitioner to question the notification issued under section 22A of the Act. _____________________________ Justice T. MEENA KUMARI _______________________ Justice SANJAY KUMAR Dated 13th July, 2009. Dvs/Gurc HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 203 of 2002 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Dated 13th July, 2009.