THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.C.No.1165 OF 2010 Dt: 1-03-2011 Between: M. Sai Narasimha Rao & others …..Petitioners And Sri A.C.Punetha, Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1165 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners claimed to be the owners of Acs.10-00 guntas and Acs.12-10 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.299 and 300 of Poppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1092, dated 6.6.2005 in exercise of power under Section 22-A of the Registration Act (for short, the Act), prohibiting registration of the transactions in relation to various lands in Ranga Reddy District including those lands in Sy.Nos.299 and 300 of Poppalaguda village. The writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 1.5.2007 and the G.O. was set aside, following the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan V. Basanth Nahata[1]. The Sub-Registrar, Rajendranagar i.e., the 3rd respondent herein was directed to examine the documents that may be presented by the petitioners in relation to the said lands in accordance with law without reference to the above G.O. This writ petition is filed alleging that the respondents No.1 and 2 did not take steps for deletion of the lands from the list under G..O.Ms.No.1092 or for modification of the G.O. and 3rd respondent has refused to register the documents. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner did not present any document at all. The further plea raised by the 2nd respondent is that those lands belong to the Government and reference is made to various proceedings to ensure in relation thereto. The another contention of the respondents is that after this Court has set aside Section 22- A of the Act, which was introduced through Act 4 of 1999. Further amendment was made in the year 2006 by the State Legislature, which contains a provision for validation of the orders that were passed in exercise of power under the Section 22-A of the Act. Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General for the respondents. On the earlier occasion, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter dated 8.1.2001 to the 3rd respondent, requesting him not to entertain any documents. Challenging that letter, petitioners filed W.P.No.13024 of 2001. The writ petition was allowed on 19.9.2001 holding that the 2nd respondent is not conferred with the power under Section 22-A of the Act. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1092, dated 6.6.2005 under Section 22-A of the Act covering the lands of the petitioners. Challenging the G.O., the petitioners filed W.P.No.9842 of 2007. The writ petitioner was allowed following the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Basanth Nahata referred to supra. Had the matter stood at that, the refusal by the 3rd respondent to entertain documents submitted by the petitioner for registration, would certainly have constituted contempt of Court. However, a significant development has taken place. The A.P. State Legislature introduced a fresh provision which is numbered as 22-A, with a different content. Apart from prohibiting alienation of certain categories of lands and registration of documents in relation thereto, the new provision has validated the G.Os. issued under relevant provision. Unless the petitioner challenges the newly enacted provision, he cannot ignore the consequences flowed from it. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed leaving it open to the petitioners to assail the G.O. on merits or challenge Section 22-A of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Dt: 01.03.2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.C.No.1165 OF 2010 DATE: 01.03.2011 [1] AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3401=(205) 12 SCC 77