THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.989 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Admit. At the request of the learned Advocates, the appeal is finally heard today. The appellant was respondent in Writ Petition No.10208 of 2009. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been described as they were arrayed before the learned Single Judge. The case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the document Nos.847 and 848 of 2008, dated 28.6.2008, were submitted to the respondent for the purpose of registrarion under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The documents had been submitted on 28.6.2008, but the respondent did not register the same and therefore the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of the aforestated petition praying that the respondent be directed to act in accordance with law and release the documents pending with him after their due registration. After hearing the concerned Advocates, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition by directing the respondent to register and release the pending documents bearing Nos.847and 848 of 2008, dated 28.6.2008 treating them as release/relinquishment deeds and collect the stamp duty accordingly. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, challenging the validity of the aforestated order passed by the learned Single Judge, has submitted that it was not open to the learned Single Judge to come to the conclusion that the documents were in the nature of release/relinquishment deeds. Stand of the respondent was that the docments were sale deeds whereby the property in question was transferred/conveyed from one person to another. It has also been submitted by the learned Government Pleader that without examining the nature of the documents, the learned Single Judge could not have come to the conclusion, especially when the respondent authority wanted to consider whether the documents submitted for registration were in fact documents pertaining to release/relinquishment deeds. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, has submitted that the documents had been submitted for registration on 28.6.2008 and as the respondent did not take any action even under Section 71 of the Registration Act, the petitioner had approached this Court with the prayer that the respondent be directed to register the documents as release/relinquishment deeds and stamp duty be charged thereon accordingly and thereafter release the same. It has been submitted that at this stage, it would not be proper to quash and set aside the impugned order for the reason that the learned Single Judge had considered both the documents and had come to the aforestated conclusion. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the impugned judgment and the facts of the case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge, for coming to the aforestated conclusion, ought to have recorded some reasons, but no reason has been recorded. We also believe that the learned Single Judge should not have come to the said conclusion at this juncture, especially in view of the fact that Section 71 of the Registation Act enables the respondent to refuse registation and record the reason for which he had refused to register the document with an endorsement "registration refused" and on an application, give reasons to the concenred person for which the registration was refused. An aggrieved person can also challenge the aforstated decision of the Sub-Registrar. Thus, there is a provision with regard to examiantion of the document and giving reasons for which the Sub-Registrar comes to a different conclusion with regard to the nature of the document. In our opinion, the respondent – Sub-Registar ought to have given his reasons for refusing the registration to the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act. For the aforestated reason, we direct that the respondent shall record the reasons and shall forward the same to the petitioner for which he believes that the documents are not release/relinquishment deeds but they are deeds of conveyance. As the documents had been submitted on 28.6.2008 and till today no decision has been conveyed by the respondent, we direct the respondent to record the reasons as soon as possible and convey the same to the petitioner by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order by him. Looking to the facts of the case, we further direct that even if the petitioner does not submit any application to the respondent, the respondent shall furnish the reasons to the petitioner. Upon getting the reasons, the petitioner shall do the needful, if he is aggrieved by the reasons stated by the respondent. In view of the above order, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. Only because of non-action on the part of the Sub-Registrar, the entire litigation has arisen, which he could have avoided. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. _______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03.8.2009 bnr Note: C.C. in two days. (B.O) bnr