IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9188 of 2009 Between: Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church Rep. by its President, Rev. V.E. Christopher, a Society Registered Under Societies Registration Act, XXI of 1860, Having its Reg. Office at Backers Compound, Brodiepet, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Sub-Registrar - I Guntur Guntur Dist. .....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 to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondent in not receiving the documents, not registering the same and insisting on the Petitioner to produce the NOC from the Dist. Collector, inspite of the same being withdrawn by the CCLA, Hyderabad, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Letter dated 22-04-2009 and consequentially direct the Respondent to register the documents presented by the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.G.K.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 9188 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner submitted a document for registration before the first respondent in respect of 150 sq. yards of land in T.S.No.59 of Block No.3 of Guntur Municipal Corporation. Initially, the document was not processed on the basis of a memo dated 28.07.2005 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration directing that the documents in respect of the lands owned by Christian Missionaries shall not be registered unless accompanied by ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the District Collector. Thereafter, the endorsement was withdrawn. To know the reason for not registering the document, the petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act. Through letter dated 22.04.2009, the respondent has informed the petitioner that there is no provision, which prohibits the registration unless the properties are mentioned in the prohibited category. The letter is silent as to whether the document presented by the petitioner is covered by any provision of law. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has not registered the document yet. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. In the recent past, it has become difficult task for citizens even to get the documents registered. There should not be any objection if the registration is withheld, if the land is covered by Section 22-A of the Registration Act (for short ‘the Act’). The respondent does not even state that the document presented by the petitioner is in any way hit by Section 22-A of the Act. There cannot be any justification to keep the document pending indefinitely. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of and the respondent is directed to process the document presented by the petitioner and take necessary steps to complete the same within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the document is in order, it shall be admitted and registered and if there exist any reasons for not registering, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner within that time. L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:30.04.2009 usd