IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26131 of 2000 Between: 1 Sri Sagiraju Venkatasuraparaju, S/o. Late Narayanaraju, R/o. West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 2 Sri Rudraraju Venkataraju, S/o. Late Narayanaraju, R/o. West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 3 Sri Rudraraju V.S.S.N.Raju, S/o. R. Venkataraju, R/o. West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 4 Smt. Indukuri Sitayamma, W/o. Venkata Subbaraju, R/o. West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 5 Sri Alluri Sivajiraju, S/o. Venkata Subbaraju, R/o. West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 6 Sri Allur Suryanarayanaraju, S/o. Venkata Subbaraju, R/o. West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 7 Sri Mankena Suryanarayanaraju, S/o. Narayanaraju, R/o. West Maredpally, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameerpet Mandal, Rangareddy District. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Medchal, Rangareddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR MEHERCHAND NORI FOR MR.K.RAJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R : This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside memo dated 10-03-1993 issued by respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners, who claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring Acs.8.09 guntas comprised in Survey No.667 of Devaryamjal Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, entered into sale transaction with third parties to sell the said property. When the petitioners approached respondent No.2 in that connection to enquire about the valuation of the land for the purpose of registering the sale deed, respondent No.2 refused to furnish the required particulars in view of the impugned memo of respondent No.1, wherein he requested respondent No.2 not to entertain any transactions in respect of various survey numbers, which included Survey No.667 of Devaryamjal Village. The petitioners, therefore, ﬁled this writ petition questioning the said memo issued by respondent No.1. At the hearing, Sri Meherchand Nori, learned counsel representing Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that respondent No.2 being the authority entrusted with the function of registering documents after collecting proper stamp duty, he is not expected to take into consideration extraneous considerations, such as the impugned communication given by respondent No.1, as the same does not bind him. He also submitted that the impugned memo is obviously traceable to Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short “the Act”), which has been struck down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others v. Basant Nahata[1]. He alternatively contended that even assuming that Section 22-A of the Act, which is inserted by the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature by Act 4 of 1999, is valid, unless a notiﬁcation is issued in the Oﬃcial Gazette by the State Government declaring the registration of any document or class of documents as opposed to public policy, neither respondent No.1 has any power to issue the impugned memo nor respondent No.2 is bound to act on such a memo. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue fairly conceded that no such notiﬁcation has been issued by the State Government in respect of the land in question. A Division Bench of this Court in Sub Registrar, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and others v. K.Ramakrishna Raju[2], by its judgment dated 21-07-2004, aﬃrmed the order of a learned Single Judge, who held the memo identical to the one, which is impugned in this writ petition as illegal, as the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer has no authority in law to issue such a memo directing the registering authority not to register the document presented for registration. The Division Bench, while holding that the said view of the learned Judge did not suﬀer from any legal inﬁrmity, observed that no provision of law was brought to their notice under which such directions could have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer or by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps directing the Sub-Registrar not to register the documents presented by the interested parties. It also held that mere registration of the document itself would in no manner confer any additional right upon an individual. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that no notification, as required under Section 22-A(1) of the Act, was issued by the State Government and therefore, the memos issued by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps and the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer directing the Sub-Registrar not to register the documents were void and inoperative. The facts in the instant case are identical to the facts in the case decided by the Division Bench. The question whether Section 22-A of the Act is valid or not need not be gone into for the present purpose, because the respondents have not shown that the State Government issued any notiﬁcation and published the same in the Oﬃcial Gazette declaring that registration of any document in respect of the land in question is opposed to public policy. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned memo is quashed giving liberty to respondent No.2 to register the documents, if presented by the petitioners, if they conform to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th September, 2008 vrn [1] (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 77 [2] W.A.No.707 of 2002