THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10308 of 2010 Dated:29.04.2010 Between: Chinakappala @ Kappala Venkatramana @ Pedda Venkataramana. …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10308 of 2010 ORDER: The second petitioner is the nephew of the first petitioner. It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner purchased Acs.2.85 cents in survey No.59 of B.K.Palle of Madanapalle under a registered sale deed dated 22.07.1963. After death of second petitioner’s father, he succeeded to his share. It appears, the land is classified in the revenue records as “Gayyalu” (poramboke). When the petitioners submitted sale deed for registration, the Sub Registrar insisted for No Objection Certificate from Tahsildar. Thereafter, it appears, the revenue authorities considered the matter. The Tahsildar also opined that as the land is assigned land prior to 1958, the prohibition under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, has no application. Be that as it is, the petitioners filed O.S.No.332 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, against the first respondent for permanent injunction and obtained status quo. As their application is still pending for issue of No Objection Certificate and the fourth respondent is refusing to accept the documents for registration, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of the Division Bench in Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District v P.Harinath Reddy[1] and an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.358 of 2009, dated 22.01.2009 (Cheruku Chandrasekhar Reddy v The Sub Registrar, Madanapalle). The said case deals with the land comprised in survey No.510/2 and this Court considering various aspects allowed the writ petition directing the District Collector to pass a reasoned order in the applications. The petitioners, therefore, contend that any non acceptance of the documents by the fourth respondent is illegal and arbitrary to the Registration Act, 1908 (the Act). This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area). The petitioners’ purchase statedly was on 22.07.1963. It appears, the matter has been pending for issue of No Objection Certificate before the revenue authorities. In this background having regard to the various documents, even if the petitioners submit the conveyance deeds for registration, the Sub Registrar has to necessarily consider keeping in view Sections 31 to 36 of the Act and/or Rules 26 and 58 of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Act. As and when the documents are submitted, the fourth respondent may also take into consideration Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District v P.Harinath Reddy (supra), and pass reasoned order after processing the documents submitted for registration. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 29.04.2010 Note: Issue C.C in one week. B/o. vs [1] 2009 (4) ALT 1 (DB)