IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 21292 of 2008 Between: Narava Sri Maruthi Site Owners Welfare Association, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam, bearing Registration No.678/2008, Reptd. by its Secretary Sri. J.S.V.S. Prasad S/o. Baburao, aged 39 years, Hindu male, R/o.D.No. 45-58-7/2, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam-24. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub-Registrar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 2 Smt.Palla Appalanarasamma W/o.late Sanyasi Rao R/o.Narva Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Sri Vommi Pentayya S/o.Appalaswamy R/o.Narva Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Sri Vadapalli Venkata Surya Sanyasi Raju S/o.late Bhaskar Raju R/o. M.I.G. 1-128, VUDA Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Visakhapatnam. 5 Sri.N.Nooka Raju S/o.Vemalanna R/o.A.L.Puram, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent not to entertain registration of any sale deed or any other documents relating to the plots of members of the Petitioner-Association in Sy.Nos. 375/1 to 9 & 376/3, 4 & 5 of Narva Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam in an extent of Ac.11-20 cents being presented by the respondents 2 to 5. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a direction to the 1st respondent-Sub-Registrar not to entertain registration of any sale deed or any other documents presented by respondent Nos.2 to 5 relating to the plots in an extent of Ac.11.20 cents of land in S.Nos.375/1 to 9 & 376/3, 4 & 5 situated in Narva Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam which belong to the members of the petitioner-Association. The case of the petitioner-association is that its members purchased various plots in an extent of Ac.11.20 cents of land in S.Nos.375/1 to 9 & 376/3, 4 & 5 situated in Narva Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam, by virtue of various registered sale deeds from the original owners Budda Raju Ramachandra Raju and others. The original owners, after the layout was approved by the Gram Panchayat in the year 1971, sold away the plots, and since then the members of the petitioner have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective plots. While so, the 2nd and 3rd respondents, who are claiming themselves to be the vendors, and the 4th and 5th respondents, who are claiming themselves to be the vendees of the lands in question, with a view to grabbing the lands, are trying to create some fabricated registered sale deeds without any manner of right. Then, the petitioner-association made a representation dated 12.8.2008 to the 1st respondent-Sub-Registrar requesting him not to entertain any such documents if presented by respondents 2 to 5 for registration. Now, the grievance of the petitioner-association is that though it made a representation, the 1st respondent is entertaining registration of sale deeds in respect of the plots belonging to the members of the petitioner-association. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 1st respondent. The law is well settled that there is no power conferred on the registering authority to refuse to register a document when presented for registration, except in respect of the classes of documents mentioned in Section 22-A of the Registration Act, which are prohibited from being registered and for the circumstances as mentioned in Section 35 thereof. If the registering authority is allowed to refuse to register the documents, then it amounts to permitting him to decide title disputes, which power, admittedly is vested in the civil Courts. Therefore, no direction can be given to the Sub Registrar, not to register the documents presented by the unoﬃcial respondents. If the petitioner feels that if the documents, the non-registration, for which they ﬁled writ petition, are registered, the rights of its members would be adversely aﬀected, then in such an event, they can avail the remedies available to them under law before the competent civil Court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of any documents in respect of the lands in question, it is at liberty to avail the remedies available to it under law before the competent civil Court. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 29th September, 2008 bcj