IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20236 of 2010 Between: B.V.S.S. Narasimha Ratnakar & another. ..... Petitioners AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by The Secretary to Govt, Revenue (VIG-VI) Dept., Hyderabad & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri S.A. Razack Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20236 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in registering the documents presented by the petitioners as illegal while setting aside letter dated 22.06.2010 addressed by respondent No.2 to petitioner No.1. I have heard Sri S.A. Razack, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of the plots referred to in the affidavit. When they intended to sell the said plots and presented the sale deeds for registration, respondent No.2 refused to receive the said documents for registration and issued letter/notice dated 22.06.2010, wherein it is inter alia stated that through Memo dated 16.12.2008 the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps issued instructions to the District Registrar, Kakinada, to stop registration of the plots in Sy.Nos.6/3F, 78/2 and 6/11A of Madhavapatnam Village of Samalkot Mandal till the layouts are regularized by the competent authority/till the classification of land use is changed. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, he has sought to justify his action in not registering the sale deeds on the ground that by the abovementioned proceedings of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, he was directed not to register the plots. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ground mentioned in memo dated 16.12.2008 by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps does not fall within the purview of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, “the Act”). In my opinion, unless the registration is prohibited on account of any reasons contained in Section 22A of the Act, it is not permissible for respondent No.2 to refuse registration. I am therefore of the opinion that the reasons contained in Memo dated 16.12.2008, which are not germane for refusal to register the documents, cannot be made a basis for respondent No.2 to refuse registration. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and impugned letter dated 22.06.2010 issued by respondent No.2 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to register the documents that may be presented by the petitioners, subject to their fulfilling all legal formalities. This order, however, does not preclude the competent authority from initiating action against the unauthorized layouts in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.25684 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.09.2010 ES