IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 11685 of 2002 Between: V.Surendra Babji, S/o. Late Sri Raghavaiah R/o. D.No.10-50-47, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Prl.Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Sub-Registrar, I Town Area Visakhapatnam. .....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 an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring: a) Section 22 A incorporated in Registration Act by A.P. Amendment Act 4/1999 as illegal, arbitrary, ultra virus, un-constitutional and invalid; b) the A.P. Registration (Prohibition of Registration of Certain documents opposed to Public Policy) Rules 1999 and more particularly rule 2(b) thereof and the consequent G.O.Ms.No. 657, Revenue (Registration I) Department, dated 08/10/2001 issued by the 1st respondent which was published in the Part-I Extraordinary of A.P. Gazette under Notification No. 421, dated 20/10/2001 as being illegal, ultra virus and un-constitutional and quash the same and c) pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah, J.) A Division Bench of this Court while admitting the writ petition directed the Sub Registrar, 3rd respondent herein, to register the documents presented by the petitioner, if they are otherwise in order, without reference to G.O.Ms.No.657, dated 8.10.2001, and not to release the documents and keep them in his custody until further orders. The petitioner challenges the validity of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, which was inserted by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act No.4 of 1999, Andhra Pradesh Registration (Prohibition of Registration of Certain Documents opposed to public policy) Rules, 1999 and the Notification contained in G.O.Ms.No.657, Revenue (Registration I) Department, dated 8.10.2001. Earlier, W.P.No.3787 of 2002 had been filed for the same purpose and a Division Bench of this Court, while allowing the said writ petition, made the following order: “In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for striking down Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act’), which was inserted by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act No.4 of 1999, A n d h r a Pradesh Registration (Prohibition of Registration of Certain Documents opposed to public policy) Rules, 1999 (for short, ‘the Rules’) and Notification contained in G.O.Ms. No.657, Revenue (Registration I) Department, dated 8.10.2001. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition be disposed of in terms of order dated 7.12.2005 passed in W.P.No.14099 of 2003 and batch. In view of the agreed statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is allowed. Section 22-A of the Act as inserted by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act No.4 of 1999 is declared unconstitutional and struck down. Consequently, the Rules and Notification dated 8.10.2001 are also struck down. The detailed reasons recorded in order dated 7.12.2005 in Writ Petition No.14099 of 2003 shall be read as part of this order.” It is stated that the documents registered are not released and they are being kept in the custody of the 3rd respondent. In view of the striking down of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 introduced under A.P. Amendment Act No.4 of 1999 and the notification contained in G.O.Ms.No.657, Revenue (Registration I) Department, dated 8.10.2001, and keeping in mind the aforesaid order in W.P.No.3787 of 2002 dated 5.6.2006, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to release the documents of the petitioner which were registered and kept in the custody of the Sub Registrar, I Town Area, Visakhapatnam, if there is no other impediment in law requiring the withholding of the said documents. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 17.4.2009 kpr