IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 2347 of 2008 Between: K. Kondala Rao S/o K. Narayana r/o #1-89/2, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Inspector of General of Registrarion & Stamps, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Sub-Registrar, Moosarampet Ranga Reddy District. 3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Smt. Nagaram Rachel Saralamma W/o late Nagaram Rajarathnam, R/o H. No. 277/3RT, Sanjeevareddy nagar, Hyderabad-38 5 Sri Adusumilli Yesu babu S/o Sri Nageswara Rao r/o D. No. B1-3, HUDA Colony Chandanagar, Hyderabad. 6 Sri Parimi Lakshmki Parasanna D/o Sri P.v. Krishna Rao R/o Plot No. 874, Vasant nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 7 Sri Parimi Satish S/o Sri P.V. Krishna Rao R/o Plot No. 874, Vasant nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 8 Sri V. Viswanath Reddy S/o Sri Koti rEddy r/o Flat No. 104, Tejaswini Apartments, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 9 Sri V. Prakash Reddy S/o V. Viswanatha Reddy r/o Flat No. 104, Tejaswini Apartments, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 10 Sri D. Venkat reddy S/o Sri Nagi reddy Presently R/o Gudipadu Village, Chatri mandal, Krishna District, A.P., .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in registering the sale deeds, dt 19-05-2006 bearing document Nos. 12810/06 and 13123/06 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Proceedings of the respondent No. 3 in Lr. No. E1/7306/99, dated 29-01-2000 and consequently set a side the same and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SRINIVAS DAMMALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Writ Petition NO.2347 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is misconceived. The 2nd respondent as the registering authority under the provisions of the Registration Act,1908 (for short “the Act”) registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.12810 of 2006 and 13123 of 2006 on 19-05-2006 executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the respondents 5 to 10. It would appear that the 4th respondent had instituted a civil suit against the petitioner subsequent to the registration of the documents. The 3rd respondent- the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District addressed a letter dated.29-01-2000 to the 2nd respondent-registering authority which reads as under:- “I invite your attention to the references cited an inform that the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District he proposed to take-up Revision under Section 166(B) of Andhra Pradesh Telanga Area Land Revenue Act,1317 Fasli with regard to the validity and propriety of the title on the lands in Sy.Nos5,6,9,19,29,39,41,44,52,61,77,98,119 and 121 of Maqti Mahboobpet Village of Seri Lingampally Mandal. Therefore, I request not to entertain any transaction/layout approval/plan approval/any registration in the said Sy.Nos., until further orders.” Alleging that the 2nd respondent violated the instructions of the 3rd respondent contained in the 3rd respondent’s letter dated.29.01.2000, the writ petition is filed. On consideration of the legal position the writ petition is seen to be as misconceived as the letter of the 3rd respondent dated.29.01.2000. The 2nd respondent as the registering officer exercises statutory powers under the provisions of the Act and there is no provision brought to the notice of this Court whereunder the 2nd respondent is required to act under the dictation of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent may have administrative oversight in the district but does not exercise supervisory or oversight functions over the statutory functions of the 2nd respondent. Under the provisions of the Act, the 2nd respondent is bound to consider for registration any document presented to him unless the document ought not to be registered in view of the provisions of the Act. The 2nd respondent is a creature of the Act and is not subject to the control of the 3rd respondent-the District Collector. Unmindful of the operational autonomy of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent appears to have addressed a wholly unauthorised communication dated.29.01.2000 directing the 2nd respondent not to entertain inter alia any registration on the ground that there is a proposal by the Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District to take up a Revision under Section 166 (B) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act,1317 Fasli with regard to certain lands in Mahaboobpet Village of Seri Lingampally Mandal. The embryonic or potential exercise of power under Sec.166 (B) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act,1317 Fasli at any rate would not eclipse the statutory power of the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Act, to consider registration of a document presented. On the aforesaid analysis, the letter of the 3rd respondent dated.29-01- 2000 is not an instrument to which any credence ought to be accorded by the 2nd respondent. The communication has no basis in law and the 3rd respondent is totally out of bounds in having addressed such a letter. Even if the 2nd respondent had received any such communication he must ignore the directive and proceed to exercise his functions under the provisions of the Act. The writ petition is beseeches rejection and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 24th JUNE 2009 *TSNR