IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:21189 of 2008 Between: C.Veerabhadrappa, S/o. late C.Nagendrappa, R/o. 527 D, BHEL R.C.Puram, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ananthapur, 2 The Sub Registrr, Gooty, 3 M.Sudarshan Reddy, D R O, O/o. Collector, Ananthapur. 4 The Tahsildar, Gooty Mandal, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.RANGA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside letter, dated 12.09.2008 in R.C.No.D4/4776/06, dated 12.09.2008 addressed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1.15 cents in Survey No.425-B of Gooty Revenue Village and Mandal, Anantapur District. He averred that he was issued pattadar passbook and title deed on 12.07.2004 and that intending to sell the said land to third parties, he approached respondent No.2 on 10.09.2008 and the latter refused to register the said document on the ground that respondent No.1 addressed the impugned letter. A perusal of the impugned letter shows that one Mr. C.Basavaraju ﬁled a petition before the Joint Collector, Anantapur with a request not to allow any sale deed in respect of the above-mentioned property registered and that in view of the pendency of revision, respondent No.2 shall not register the document. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted and in my view rightly that respondent Nos.1 and 3 have absolutely no jurisdiction to address such a letter to respondent No.2. Even a direction under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 can be given only in cases where a notiﬁcation was issued by the State Government including therein the lands, which are prohibited from being registered. A perusal of the impugned letter does not suggest that any such notiﬁcation in respect of the land in question is issued and in existence. In view of the same, the impugned letter suﬀers from legal inﬁrmity and jurisdictional error and the same is accordingly, set aside leaving respondent No.2 free to register the document presented by the petitioner. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni