THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27353 of 2009 ORDER: American Baptist Foreign Mission Society is the owner of the land admeasuring Acs.2.20 cents in Survey No.341/B of Markapur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. It wanted to appoint the petitioner herein as its General Power of Attorney to deal with the said land and accordingly, presented a General Power of Attorney for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Markapur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, respondent No.2 herein. Respondent No.2 refused to register the document by making reference to a letter, dated 20.11.2009, of the Revenue Divisional Officer, respondent No.3 herein. The action of respondent No.2 is challenged in this writ petition. Respondents have filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that though respondent No.3 issued Memo, dated 25.05.2009, directing that there is no prohibition against the land in Survey No.341/B, he has revised the same through his letter, dated 20.11.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. This is not a case where the land is covered by Section 22-A of the Registration Act, much less, any notification was issued under that provision in relation to this land. A perusal of the various letters addressed or proceedings issued by respondent No.3 discloses that there was no consistency in the matter. It all started with a Memo, dated 16.08.2005, issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, through which, he directed that the documents in relation to the land held by the Christian Missionaries shall not be registered. It is not referable to any provision of law and is clearly without jurisdiction. In his Memo, dated 25.05.2009, addressed to the Tahsildar, Markapur, respondent No.3 clearly stated that there is no prohibition against the land in Survey No.341/B. However, by making reference to the Memo, dated 16.08.2005, issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, respondent No.3 addressed a letter, dated 20.11.2009. They do not have any statutory force. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to process the document presented by the petitioner, without reference to the letter, dated 20.11.2009, addressed by respondent No.3. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 05.02.2010. kdl