HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.31963 of 2010 Date: February 8, 2011 Between: 1. Appala Neelema & another … Petitioners And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.31963 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in registering the documents presented by the petitioners in respect of Plot No.50, admeasuring to an extent of 117.50 square yards or 98.24 square metres situate in Sy. R.S. Nos.6/3F, 78/2, 6/11A and Plot No.39, to an extent of 168 square yards or 140.07 square metres situate in R.S. No.78/2 of Madhavapatnam village, Samalkota Mandal, East Godavari District, respectively, as illegal. 2. I have heard Sri G. Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. The counsel for the petitioners submits that this case is similar to W.P. No.20236 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court on 27.9.2010. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of the plots referred to above. When they intend to sell the said plots and presented the sale deeds for registration, respondent No.2 refused to receive the said documents for registration and informed that through Memo dated 16.12.2008 the first respondent requested the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps to issue instructions to the District Registrar, Kakinada, to stop registration of the plots stated supra till the layouts are regularized by the competent authority/till the classification of land use is changed. 4. Although no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, the respondents sought to justify their action in not registering the sale deeds on the ground that in view of the above mentioned proceedings of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, he was directed not to register the plots. 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the ground mentioned in Memo dated 16.12.2008 does not fall within the purview of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, “the Act”). 6. In my opinion, unless the registration is prohibited on account of any reasons contained in Section 22A of the Act, it is not permissible for respondent No.2 to refuse registration. I am therefore of the opinion that the reasons contained in Memo dated 16.12.2008 which are not genuine for refusal to register the documents cannot be made a basis for respondent No.2 to refuse registration. 7. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and Respondent No.2 is directed to register the documents that may be presented by the petitioners, subject to their fulfilling all legal formalities. This order, however, does not preclude the competent authority from initiating action against the unauthorized layouts in accordance with law. No costs. __________________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J Date: February 8, 2011. Note: Issue CC in one week. //B.O.// BSB