THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22888 of 2010 Date: 14.09.2010 Between: Sri Korumautla Nageshwariah ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Collector, Kadapa, and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri Counsel for Respondents: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in refusing to entertain sale deed for registration for house site to an extent of Ac.0.07 ¾ cents out of Acs.14.84 cents in survey No.542 of Ravindranagar, Chemmumiaypet Village, Kadapa District, through endorsement dated 27.11.2009 at the instance of respondent No.5, as illegal. Heard Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In his affidavit, the petitioner has narrated the facts relating to the title over Acs.14.84 cents of land in survey No.542 of Ravindranagar, Chemmumiaypet Village, Kadapa District, out of which the petitioner claimed to have purchased Ac.0.07 ¾ cents from one B. Pulla Reddy, S/o. Yerukla Reddy and Savithramma, W/o late Rama Subba Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 26.05.1986. When the petitioner intending to sell the property in favour of Smt. Padmavathamma, W/o Venkata Subbiah, for a sale consideration of Rs.12,25,000/-, presented the document for registration, respondent No.4 refused to entertain the sale deed for registration and gave endorsement dated 27.11.2009 stating that as per the proceedings dated 08.05.2008 of respondent No.5, the land in question belongs to Wakf. At the hearing, Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the property in question was never notified as a wakf property and therefore, the impugned endorsement given at the instance of a third party i.e., respondent No.5 cannot be sustained. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situated within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No.2, and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document and on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document shall without payment and unnecessary delay give him a copy of the reasons so recorded. Under Section 72 of the Act, except where the refusal is made on the ground of denial of execution, an appeal shall lie against an order of Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document to registration (where the registration of such document is compulsory or optional) to the Registrar to whom such Sub-Registrar is subordinate, if presented to such Registrar within thirty days from the date of the order. In the instant case, the Registrar has already refused registration of the document by making an endorsement and the reason for refusal is specifically stated in the communication given by him to the petitioner. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by such refusal, he is entitled to file an appeal as envisaged under Section 72 of the Act. The petitioner has not indicated any reason as to why he has not availed this remedy of statutory appeal. The law is well settled that this Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not ordinarily entertain a writ petition filed by bypassing the alternative remedy. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and adjudicate on merits. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving the petitioner free to avail the remedy of appeal. Inasmuch as the petitioner could not file appeal within the period of limitation, he is permitted to file appeal within a period of two weeks from today. If the appeal is filed within the above stipulated time, the appellate authority shall entertain and dispose of the same on merits. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.29195 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th September, 2010 GHN