IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11330 of 2000 Between: Greater Banjara Housing Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Ch.Bhupal Goud, S/o.Late Ayodhya, R/o.H.No.1-2-53, Flat No.302 , Odeon Enclave, Domalaguda , Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector General of Stamps & Registration, Having Office at Ramakrishna Studio, Golkonda X Roads , Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner (Land Revenue), Nampally Station Road , Hydrerabad. 4 The District Registrar, Stamps & Registration, Mozam-Jahi Market, Hyderabad. 5 The Sub-Registrar of Shaikpet Village, Erragadda , Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GOPAL G. NAIK Counsel for the Respondent No.: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of respondent No.5 in returning the document, presented by the learned XIX-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for registration, to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Gopal G. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. The petitioner filed O.S.No.1241 of 1999 before the learned XIX-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for specific performance of an agreement of sale against one Ahmed Abdul Waheed, in respect of certain properties. The said suit ended in a compromise decree. In E.P.No.176 of 1999, the learned XIX-Junior Civil Judge executed a registered sale deed on behalf of the said Ahmed Abdul Waheed in favour of the petitioner on 17-04-2000 and presented the same for registration to respondent No.5 on 22-04-2000. Respondent No.5 having accepted the document for registration, assigned it document No. P.99/2000, but kept the registration pending. Respondent No.5 addressed letter dated 26-04-2000 to respondent No.4, wherein he requested him to clarify certain doubts raised by him in the matter of registration. The petitioner filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the non-registration of the document and keeping the same pending by respondent No.5. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5, he, inter alia, stated that he accepted the document for registration; that in order to verify chargeability of stamp duty and registration fee on the market value and the implications of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and Income-Tax Act, 1961 he addressed letter to respondent No.4 for clarification. He, however, stated that since the property is situated in urban area and highly valuable apart from implications of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and Income Tax Act, 1961 having been involved, the document was kept pending registration. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings, I find myself unable to appreciate the indecisiveness of respondent No.5 in dealing with the document sent by the Court of competent jurisdiction for registration. If respondent No.5 felt that a particular course of action is warranted under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908, he should have resorted to such a course with all the expedition that is required. He cannot rest content by merely addressing a letter to his superior and take years on end by keeping the document pending to the detriment of the party who is seeking registration of the document. The inordinate delay on the part of respondent No.5 in taking a decision only reflects on his incapacity to decide on the issue. Respondent No.5 had not so far either released the document to the petitioner or passed any order refusing to register the same. Such an indifference on his part cannot be appreciated by the Court. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to respondent No.5 to take an immediate action on the document sent by XIX-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for registration, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Unless respondent No.5 finds legally tenable objections to withhold the document, he shall release the same to the petitioner. In the event he finds any such legally valid objections in registering the document, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner within the above stipulated time. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.29272 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st July, 2008 vrn