IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 24023 of 2008 Between: Sri Kodidala Sai Neeraj Kumar S/o.K.P.V.Subbaiah R/o.Plot No.16, RoadNo.72,Jubili Hills Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sub Registrar, Rayachoti, Kadapa District 2 Balishetti Chandra Mouli S/o.Late B.Laxmaiah R/o.Kothapally Hamlet of Kasireddygari Pally, Ramapuram Mandal, Kadapa District, AP 3 Sri B.Sunder S/o.B.Raghava Chari R/o.H.No.6-3-347/15, Dwarakapuri Punjagutta, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not receiving the sale deed documents and not registering the documents presented by the petitioner in respect to agricultural land in SY.No.1/1 to an extent of Ac.3.65 cents and in Sy.No.6 to an extent of Ac.2.30 cents total extent of Ac.5.95 cents respectively situated at Kaspagollapally village, Rayachoti mandal, Kadapa District is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently direct the 1st respondent to register the documents presented by the petitioner in respect to agricultural land in Sy.No.1/1 to an extent of Ac.3.65 cents and in SY.No.6 to an extent of Ac.2.30 cents total extent of Ac.5.95 cents respectively situated at Kaspagollapally village, Rayachoti Mandal, Kadapa District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 24023 of 2008 Order: The petitioner states that he entered into an agreement for purchase of the land in question from respondent No.3, who is GPA of respondent No.2, the owner of the land in question. The petitioner states that when he presented the document for registration, respondent No.1, namely, the Sub-Registrar, Rayachoti, refused to receive and register the document. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.1, and both of them agreed for disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: Respondent No.1, namely, the Sub-Registrar, Rayachoti, Kadapa District, is directed to receive and process the document for registration in accordance with law. If he has any objections for registering the document, he shall pass a speaking order, recording the objections, and communicate the same to the petitioner, to enable him to avail the remedies available to him in law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 04.11.2008 KSR/VGB