IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.NO : 16690 of 2009 Between: Gudivada Sailaja ..... PETITIONER AND The District Registrar, Visakhapatnam and two others. .....RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.16690 of 2009 ORDER: According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is the absolute owner of Ac.1.50 cents of dry land situated in Sy. No.210 of Tarluvada village, Visakhapatnam District and it is the ancestral property of the 3rd respondent and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The name of the 3rd respondent was also mutated in the pahanis and 10 (1) Adangal of the village and the pattedar passbook was also issued by the Tahsildar, Anandapuram on 14-11-1998 in his favour. While so, the 3rd respondent offered to sell the property in question at Rs.3.50 lakhs per acre. The petitioner accepted the offer and paid entire sale consideration of Rs.5,25,000/- and presented a Possessory Agreement of Sale-cum-G.P.A. on 13-02-2007, before the 2nd respondent-Sub-Registrar, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam, for registration. The petitioner also paid Rs.5,240/- towards stamp duty and Rs.2,100/- towards registration charges. The 2nd respondent received the document for registration and issued cheque slip informing the petitioner that the document is kept pending registration for want of certain clarification from the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam. After kept pending the matter for three months, the 2nd respondent issued Memo No.P/109/2007/BML, dated 15-05-2007, refusing to register the document without assigning any reasons. On enquiry, however, the petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent refused to register the document on the ground that the land in question is an assigned land within the meaning of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act. 2. According to the petitioner, the Tahsildar, Anandapuram, as early as in the year 1996, vide proceedings in R Dis.No. 663/95, dated 30-11-1995, has certified that the land in Sy. No.210 of Tarluvada village is a zeroyithi land and not a Government land. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Anandapuram, vide his proceedings Rc.No.48/2007, dated 20-05-2007, informed the 2nd respondent that in the earlier list of assigned lands, which was communicated on 12-03-2007, Sy. Nos.209, 210/1 and 210/2 were wrongly mentioned as assigned lands due to clerical mistake and the lands in those survey numbers are not assigned lands and accordingly, a revised list containing the details of assigned lands of Anandapuram Mandal, Tarluwada village, is enclosed thereto, wherein, the land of the 3rd respondent is not mentioned. Therefore, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and requested him orally to register the document in view of the revised list, dated 20-05-2007, communicated by the Tahsildar, Anandapuram. However, the 2nd respondent bluntly refused his request. Against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent without considering the appeal on its merits and the reasons for delay, rejected the said appeal. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. 3. Though a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2, denying the various allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit, the contention of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent based on the earlier letter, dated 12-03-2007, addressed by the Tahsildar, Anandapuram, refused the request of the petitioner by giving an evasive reply stating that the matter has already been considered by him vide orders dated 15-05-2007 passed under Section 72 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 and now the petitioner is supposed to file an appeal against the said order. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that once the authority concerned i.e. Tahsildar, Anandapuram, vide his proceedings No.48 of 2007, dated 20-05-2007, informed the 2nd respondent that in the earlier list of assigned lands, communicated by him through the letter dated 12-03-2007, the lands in Sy. Nos.209, 210/1 and 210/2 were wrongly mentioned as assigned lands due to clerical mistake and in fact, in the revised list, enclosed thereto, the land of the 3rd respondent is not mentioned, it is the bounden duty of the 2nd respondent to verify the facts and register the document purported to have been presented by the petitioner on 13-02-2007. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-Sub Registrar, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, to verify the letter dated 20-05-2007, addressed by the Tahsildar, Anandapuram Mandal, informing him as to the mistake that occurred in the earlier letter dated on 12-03-2007, and on verification, if the letter dated 20-05-2007 is found to be true and correct, the 2nd respondent shall take appropriate decision for the purpose of processing the sale deed for registration and release the same in favour of the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ 11th September 2009 KVR