IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 465 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23/12/2008 in WP NO : 5775 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy Temple, Padmanabham, rep. By its Executive Officer-cum-Regional Joint Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer, Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Gadu Chinnikumari Lakshmi W/o. Appala Naidu R/o. H.No.11-1-7, Gadu Street, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Sub Registrar, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam 3 The District Registrar, Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI V.VENUGOPALA RAO Counsel for the RespondentS: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 465 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is filed challenging the order, dated 23.12.2008 passed in W.P.No.5775 of 2008 by the learned single Judge. The 1st respondent herein is the writ petitioner. She filed the above writ petition seeking to declare the action of the Sub-Registrar Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District (2nd respondent herein) in refusing to entertain the registration of the sale deed dated 16.7.2007 executed in her favour in respect of Ac.2.36 cents of land in Sy.No.30/1 of Padmanabham village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, basing on a letter dated 8.10.2006 issued by the 3rd respondent-appellant stating that it is a Devasthanam land, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct respondents 2 and 3 herein to register and deliver the sale document dated 16.7.2007. The learned single Judge having observed that whenever a document is presented, the Sub-Registrar has to accept the document and consider the same whether it can be admitted for registration or not and if for any reason, the document cannot be accepted for registration, the reasons are to be recorded duly communicating the same as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 and that the person aggrieved by refusal is given right of appeal under Section 72 of the Act before the District Register, and if any adverse order is passed by the appellate authority, a suit is maintainable under Section 77 of the Act and when the writ petitioner has such remedies, which in the considered opinion of the Court are effective and efficacious, a writ petition would not lie, especially, when there is a dispute regarding the alienability of the land or the right of the vendors to sell the land, disposed of the writ petition directing the Sub-Registrar-2nd respondent herein to accept the sale deed dated 16.7.2007 and consider the same regarding its admissibility for registration and pass necessary orders under Section 71 of the Act. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the Devasthanam. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner that one Mamidi Samba Murty and Goppu Satyanarayana were jointly granted ryotwari pattas, by proceedings dated 23.6.1988 and subsequently, they partitioned the property and each of them got Ac.2.36 cents and after the death of Goppu Satyanarayana, his wife obtained pattadar pass books and offered the land to the writ petitioner and at that stage, Devasthanam has come forward with a plea that the said land is its land. On that, the Sub-Registrar refused to receive the document without recording the reasons. The provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act, go to show that whenever a document is presented for registration, the Sub- Registrar has to accept the same and consider as to whether the document can be admitted for registration or not and in any case, if the document cannot be admitted, the Sub-Registrar shall record the reasons for such non-admission and communicate the same to the party enabling it to avail the remedies that are available under law. But in the instant case, the Sub-Registrar refused to receive the document, without assigning any reasons. In view of the failure on the part of the sub-Registrar to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act enabling the petitioner to avail remedies that are open under law, the learned single Judge directed him to accept the sale dated 16.7.2007 and consider regarding its admissibility for registration and pass necessary orders under Section 71 of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of the Registration Act, we feel that the order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting of this Court and this appeal is devoid of merits and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar Dated: 9th April, 2009 Gurc/nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO :465 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 9th April, 2009