IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14030 of 2008 Between: 1 K.V.Bhanoji Rao, S/o. Lte K.Bhaskar Rao, R/o. D.No.45-47-1/14, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam-24 2 K.Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Prabhakar Rao, R/o. D.No.45-47-1/14, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam-24 ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Registrar, Department of Registration, Near Old Post Office, Visakhapatnam-I. 2 The Joint Sub-Registrar I, Department of Registration, Near Super Bazaar, Visakhapatnam. 3 Gaddigopula Sarveswara Rao S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, R/o. D.No.44-29-15/2, Krishna Kunj Apartments, New Colony, Visakhapatnam. (R3 is impleaded as per Court Order dated 10.02.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.2408 of 2009) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing sale deed document No.P349/05 pertaining to the sale of PH-I, PH-2 on 5th floor of Jyothi Residency, D.No.11-2-8, Waltair Ward No.19, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam in favour of the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court in WP.No.6159/2005 dated 21.09.2006 and Memo No.1248/Reg-1(1)/2007-1 dated 09-01-2007 issued by the State Government. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.N.BHARAT BABU Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14030 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners claim to have purchased residential flats in a complex in Door No.11-2-8, Ward No.19, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam, from the 3rd respondent herein. It is stated that the document was signed by the 3rd respondent and presented for registration before the 2nd respondent- Joint Sub-Registrar I, Department of Registration, Visakhapatnam. On account of some objections, the document was assigned Pending Registration No.349/2005 and was kept pending since 2005. The petitioners state that the obstacle in the form of notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), has since been cleared in view of the orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions. Their grievance is that, in spite of the same, their document is not being released. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the document was kept pending on account of denial by the 3rd respondent as to execution of the same. Though the 3rd respondent was served with a notice, he has not entered appearance. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Whenever a document is presented for registration, the registering authority has to satisfy himself as to the proper execution by the executant. Verification is also required to be made as regards the adequacy of stamp duty and registration charges. If, for any reason, a document cannot be admitted for registration, an order as provided for under Section 71 of the Act is to be passed. Even assuming that there was denial on the part of the 3rd respondent about the execution of the document, the 2nd respondent is under obligation to inform the same to the petitioners, so that they can workout their remedies in accordance with law. There cannot be any justification to keep the document pending without a specific order. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders as provided for under Section 71 of the Act, duly indicating the reasons in support of his decision, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY 12th March, 2009. IBL