IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.17960 of 2007 Between: P. Bangar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju R/o F.No, C-3, Green Medows, Ganga Enclave, Pet Bashirabad, Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER AND Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram at Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District. And others .....RESPONDENT 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 appropriate Writ (or) order (or) direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of the Respondent in not accepting the presentation of sale deeds including agreement of Sale-cum-GPA dt.21-12-2006 for registration in respect of plotted lands including the Plot bearing No.47 admeasuring 267 sq.yds out of an extent of Acs.4.17 Gts. in Sy. No.108 situated at Pendyal Revenue Village and Grampanchayat, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy district owned by the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, unjust contrary to law and against the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908 and in violation of Articles 14 21 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent to accept presentation of any document including Agreemetn of Sale-cum-GPA dt.21-12-2006 in respect of land in Sy. No.108 of Pendyal Revenue Village, and Grampanchayat, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to register and release the same forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.VENKAT RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.17960 OF 2007 ORDER: Petitioner statedly purchased an extent of Acs.8.20 in survey No.108 situated at Pendyal Revenue Village of Maheswaram Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, from T.Subhadra and another. It appears that he sold away certain extents of lands to third parties and retained about Acs.4.17 guntas. After obtaining necessary permission for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land, he laid out plots. He executed an agreement of sale- cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 21.12.2006 in favour of one K.Jagannadha Raju. In the mean while, one of his sisters, filed a suit being O.S.No.47 of 2006 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for partition and possession and obtained order of status quo in I.A.No.163 of 2006. When petitioner presented agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 21.12.2006 for registration, it appears that respondent refused to register the same on the ground of pendency of O.S.No.47 of 2006. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed instant writ petition. This Court while admitting writ petition on 26.10.2007 passed interim orders directing first respondent to consider document in respect of land admeasuring 267 Sq.yards out of Acs.4.17 guntas in survey No.108, without reference to order dated 10.8.2006 in I.A.No.163 of 2006. Respondents 3, 4 and 6 filed W.V.M.P.No.1194 of 2008 for vacating the said order. They claim to be successors of M.A.Sattar, who is vendor of petitioner’s vendor. Their case is that M.A.Sattar was not competent to convey any title to T.Subhadra in respect of any property taken up for decision in this case. Admittedly Sub-Registrar-first respondent herein; is not a party to the said suit. However whether an order of status quo passed in respect of property, which is sought to be conveyed under registered document, is binding on Registering Authority, is a matter to be considered by Registering Authority himself. A perusal of Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 (the Act, for brevity), and Rules 26 and 58 of Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules (the Rules, for brevity), would show that when a document is presented, Registering Officer has to consider the same in the light of provisions of the Act and the Rules, and pass an order under Section 71 of the Act. Even before receiving document, Registering Officer cannot refuse for accepting document for consideration. It is brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to interim orders of this Court dated 26.10.2008, first respondent has already registered the document in respect of plot No.47 admeasuring 267 Sq.yards in survey No.108. In that view of the matter, as and when petitioner presents document for registration, first respondent may accept and consider the same for registration. Be it noted, if for any reason, the document presented is not registered, it is incumbent on the part of the Registering Officer to record and furnish reasons under Section 71 of the Act. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Registering Authority, it shall be open to him to file appeal under Section 72 of the Act before the District Registrar. If the District Registrar i.e., the Appellate Authority declines to give direction to the Registering Authority, the aggrieved person has to file a suit under Section 77 of the Act. As O.S.No.47 of 2006 is still pending, be it noted that any observation made herein shall not prejudice rights of parties in the said suit. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) December 10, 2008. YS To 1. The Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram at Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Two CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 6 Two C.D. Copies.