THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.NO.1560 OF 2008 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard both the counsel. 2. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.24613/2008 dated 19.11.2008. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under: “Therefore, first respondent is directed to consider the pending document no.243 of 2008 submitted by the petitioner on 31.07.2008 and pass necessary orders under Section 71 of the Registration Act. This exercise shall be completed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Reasons for non- registration, if any, to be communicated to the petitioner, whereupon it shall be open to the petitioner to file appeal before the District Registrar, Department of Registration and Stamps. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” 3. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The genesis of the controversy undisputedly is that an agreement of sale – cum – irrevocable General Power of Attorney was presented by the appellant to the 1st respondent – Sub-Registrar, for registration. The 1st respondent refused to register the said document on the ground of alleged instructions from the District Collector. Challenging the same, the writ petition came to be filed. 4. Upon considering the facts, the learned single Judge had observed that there is no provision under the Registration Act (for short ‘the Act’) or under the Rules made thereunder, empowering the District Collector to issue directions to the registering authority to withhold the registration of a particular document. May be, in certain cases, particularly depending upon the nature of the document, the registering authority has the power either on his own or under the instructions of the superior authority, exercising such authority under the statute, may refuse to register the document. 5. As already pointed out, the present document sought to be registered is only an agreement of sale-cum-irrevocable general power of attorney. The said document does not confer any interest whatsoever on the parties. Therefore, the said document need not be objected to, for registration, particularly at the instance of the District Collector, who has no power to issue such instructions under the law, which was already pointed out by the learned single judge. Up to this extent, we are in total agreement with the learned single Judge. But however, the learned single Judge further directed to consider the pending document for registration and pass necessary orders under Section 71 of the Act by assigning reasons and thereafter left it open to the appellant to file appeal before the District Registrar. This obviously mean that the 1st respondent – Sub Registrar shall pass orders rejecting the registration of the document by assigning reasons. At best, 1st respondent can examine, as is noticed above, whether a particular document can be registered or not, or there is any prohibition under any statute, to do so. Therefore, in the absence of any circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned single Judge was not correct in issuing further directions to the 1st respondent to pass orders under Section 71 of the Act and granting liberty to the appellant to file appeal before the District Registrar. 6. As found by the learned single Judge, in the impugned order, there is no dispute that when a document is presented, the registering authority has to consider the same for registration and further there is no provision under the Rules or the Registration Act, empowering the District Collector to issue directions to registering authority under the statute. When such is the position, there was no necessity for the learned single Judge to further direct the Sub Registrar, particularly in view of the nature of the document sought to be registered, to pass orders under Section 71 of the Act by assigning reasons and granting liberty to the appellant to file appeal to the District Registrar. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the directions of the learned single Judge to the Sub Registrar are set aside and the writ appeal is accordingly allowed directing the 1st respondent – Sub Registrar to proceed with the registration of the document presented by the appellant, in accordance with law, without reference to the alleged instructions issued by the District Collector. No costs. ------------------------------------- D.S.R.VARMA,J ------------------------------------ G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE:27.11.2008 AVS