( 1 ) THE issue involved in both these writ petitions is similar and the facts are also identical. Hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THESE two writ petitions are filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District, respondent herein, in refusing to register the sale deeds proposed to be executed by the petitioners in favour of their respective purchasers in respect of certain lands (mentioned in the prayer portion) as illegal.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners is that they sold those lands in the year 1982 and possession was given to the purchasers then itself. The purchasers are now continuing in possession of the said lands. Recently the purchasers requested them to execute registered sale deeds in their favour and the petitioners herein agreed for the same. Accordingly, they approached the respondent to effect registration of the sale deeds proposed to be executed by them. But, the respondent refused to register the same on the ground that the said lands were proposed for acquisition by the Singareni Collieries company Limited.

( 4 ) SRI I. Aga Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the refusal of the respondent to register the sale deeds on the ground that the lands were proposed for acquisition by the Singareni Collieries Company ltd. is illegal and arbitrary, and, therefore, the respondent should be commanded by issuing a Writ of Mandamus to register the sale deeds proposed to be executed by the petitioners in favour of their purchasers.

( 5 ) STRONGLY disputing the aforesaid contentions, the learned Assistantgovernment Pleader for Revenue submitted that the petitioners neither approached the respondent nor presented any document for registration and, as such, the question of refusal by the respondent does not arise; and that, therefore, a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondent to register the so called proposed, sale deeds.

( 6 ) IN my considered view, the aforesaid submission of the learned Assistantgovernment Pleader is well founded. The petitioners did not produce any documentary proof in support of their averment that they have presented the sale deeds to the respondent for registration, but he has refused to register the same. They could not even mention the date on which they had approached the respondent. Therefore, it is difficult to accept their statement, more so when that statement is specifically denied by the respondent in his counter. At this juncture it is appropriate to note that under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short "the Act") the Sub-Registrar is bound to record reasons for his refusal. The said section is as under:-"sec. 71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded:- (1) Every Sub- registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his book No. 2 and endorse the words "registration refused" on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, Without payment and unnecessary delay, give him" a copy of the reasons so recorded. (2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions here in after contained, the document is directed to be registered. "a perusal of the above provision clearly shows that the Sub-Registrar, whenever registration is refused except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, has to pass an order and record reasons for such order in Book No. 2. If the person presenting the document applies, he should also furnish a copy of the reasons so recorded by him without payment and unnecessary delay.

( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioners herein did not make any application asking for a copy of the reasons for