THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO: 26207 OF 2007 DATED: 18.1.2008 Between: Ravi Benarjee Petitioner And The Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Registrar’s Office (OB) Machilipatnam, Krishna District and another. Respondents THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO. 26207 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 1st respondent in not releasing the registered sale deed P.No.42 of 2007 dated 14.9.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased an extent of Ac.2.50 cents of land covered by R.S.No.24/1 situated at Rudravaram Village, Bandaru Mandal, Krishna District from one Sudhabattula Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkateshwara Rao of Pedana Village and Mandal and the same was registered. It is his grievance that though the transaction was registered, the document was not released by the 1st respondent even though all the relevant link documents are available on record. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have filed a counter inter alia stating that on 14.9.2007 the petitioner presented the document for registration between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. and he was given the pending document No.42 of 2007. On the very same day, another document was presented for registration, which was given pending document No.43/07. That said document was also present between 4.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. It is also stated in the counter that the property mentioned in both the documents is one and the same, but however, the vendors and the purchasers are different. It is also stated that the boundaries of the schedule land of both the documents are also one and the same and, therefore, both the documents were kept pending and to know the genuineness of the person as to who is the actual owner, the 1st respondent has addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Machilipatnam on 4.10.2007 and till date no clarification was received from the Tahsildar, Machilipatnam. Section 32 of the Registration Act stipulates that the Sub- Registrar shall satisfy himself with regard to the identity of the executants and Section 32-A prescribes that the time of execution of the document, the photographs and thumb impressions of both the executes as well as the purchasers shall be affixed on the document. In the instant case, in respect of the very same schedule property, as per the counter averments, two documents were executed on the same day and, therefore, the 1st respondent has addressed the Tahsildar for clarification. It is also stated that no clarification was received from the Tahsildar till today. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to obtain necessary clarification from the Tahsildar within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, if there is no objection to release the document of the petitioner, he shall release the document. However, if there is any objection with regard to the identity of the executant, he is directed to pass a speaking order and intimate the same to the petitioner. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATE: 18.1.2008 msv