IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26778 of 2008 Between: Jupiter Automobiles, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Rep. by its Partner Smt. Y. Aruna Padma Kumari W/o. Raghuram, aged 30 yrs ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 District Registrar, Stamps and Registration, Registrar's Office, Near Old Post Office, Visakhapatnam. 3 Joint Sub Registrar-I , Stamps and Registration, Door No. 47-4- 40, Main Road, Super Bazar Building, Market Ward, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or orders direction or Directions declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in refusing to register and release the Sale Deed pertaining to the Plot No. 44, Block No. 56, T.S.No. 1196/43-B, Daspalle Hills, Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to issue a consequential direction to the Respondents 2 and 3 to register and release the documents pertaining to the Plot NO. 44 Block No. 56 T.S.Nop. 1196/43-B, Daspalle Hills, Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26778 of 2008 ORDER: Jupiter Automobiles, a partnership firm, purchased an extent of 836 square yards bearing No.44 in Block No.56, T.S.No.1196/43-B, Daspalla Hills, Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam, under a document dated 22.09.2008 from a Trust called Anjunman E.Badri. When the petitioner’s vendor and the petitioner presented the sale deed, the third respondent allegedly refused to register the document purportedly for the reason that such instructions were issued under G.O.Ms.No.657, dated 08.10.2001, as per Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (the Act, for brevity) as amended by A.P.Act 4 of 1999. Third respondent appears to have refused to accept the document. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to respondents to accept the document, register and release the sale deed. After getting instructions learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the document was not presented to third respondent and at no point of time it was refused for registration. Having regard to this, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to accept the document presented by the petitioner and its vendor for registration and take necessary action in accordance with the Act and the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Act (the Rules, for brevity), as held by my learned brother Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy in W.P.No.15199 of 2004, dated 01.09.2004. Be it noted, if for any reason, the document presented is not registered, it is incumbent on the part of the Registering Officer to record and furnish reasons under Section 71 of the Act. Even thereafter, if the petitioner has any grievance, it may file appeal before the appellate authority under Section 72 of the Act. Thereafter, if any adverse order is passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner can file a suit under Section 77 of the Act. Learned Counsel brought to the notice of this Court two interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.27776 of 2007 in W.P.No.21416 of 2007, dated 22.02.2008, and W.P.M.P.No.21165 of 2008 in W.P.No.16341 of 2008, dated 29.07.2008, wherein this Court while admitting similar writ petitions directed registration authorities to register the documents subject to the condition that the same would be non est in the event of writ petitions being dismissed. However, this Court is not able to follow the same for two reasons. An interlocutory order is not a binding precedent. Secondly, when the Act provides the method and manner of dealing a document presented for registration (Sections 35 and 35, and Rules 26 and 58 of the Rules etc.) a document has to be examined with reference to provisions of law, and ordinarily, there cannot be a mandamus to the registration authorities to register the document ignoring the provisions of law. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 11.12.2008 Note: Issue C.C by 15.12.2008. B/o. vs To 1 The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 District Registrar, Stamps and Registration, Registrar's Office, Near Old Post Office, Visakhapatnam. 3 Joint Sub Registrar-I , Stamps and Registration, Door No. 47-4- 40, Main Road, Super Bazar Building, Market Ward, Visakhapatnam. 4 2CCs to G.P for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}