SIVARAMAN NAIR, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS are purchasers of lands of various extents in Survey Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of Saroomagar village, L. B. Nagar Municipality of Ranga Reddy District. They submit that the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, acted beyond his jurisdiction, in interdicting the registering officers under the registration ACT, 1908, from registering documents of sale of properties. It is asserted that some of the lands were purchased long back and they had been in possession as purchasers and had also built houses on them. They submit that by reason of the Circular dt. 30-3-1991 issued by the Inspector General of registration, the registering officer has refused registration of the document, without disclosing any further reasons. Petitioners submit further that the inspector General of Registration has no power under the REGISTRATION ACT, 1908, to issue a direction to the Sub-Registrars, not to register any particular document in relation to any particular property. Reliance is sought to be placed on a judgment of our learned brother Eswara Prasad, J. , in W. P. No. 8421 / 1991 dated 5-10-1991 which was subsequently followed by Bhaskara Rao, J. in W. P. No. 15308 / 91 dr. 10-12-1991. In similar circumstances, it was said to have been held that the Inspector General of Registration has no power to issue a direction of general nature, interdicting the Registering Officers not to register documents, as was directed in the impugned memo.

( 2 ) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioners also submitted that the registering officers refused to pass individual orders or make endorsements on the documents as is obligatory under Section 71 of the REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 Their complaint is that the registering officer refused to disclose reasons for such refusal. They submitted that the only reason was the illegal direction issued by the Inspector General of Registration.

( 3 ) GOVERNMENT Pleader, Revenue, appearing for the respondents submitted that the Inspector General of Registration has got powers of general superintendence under Section 69 of the REGISTRATION ACT, 1908, in exercise of which he is entitled to issue directions to all registration officers in the territories under the State Government. He however submits that in terms of Section 71 of the act, the registering officer is bound to record his orders in book No. 2 and endorse the words "registration refused" on the document. He is further obliged to supply to any person executing or claiming under the document, without payment and unnecessary delay, a copy of the reasons which he has recorded. According to him, none of the petitioners have specifically averred that they approached the registering officer and he refused to register the document, in exercise of the powers under Section 71 of the Act. He submits that it is open for the petitioners even now, if they are so advised, to approach the registering authority to register the documents. He submits further that in such case when the registering officer is approached, he will pass the necessary orders of registration or refusal as the case may be. In the latter case, in strict compliance with Section 71 of the Act, he will record reasons and if parties apply, supply them copy of the recorded reasons. He submits that in view of the above, it is not necessary for this court to decide any of the controversies raised in the Writ Petitions relating to the applicability of the Urban Land ceiling Act, 1976 or any related matters.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing counsel on both sides and perusing the judgment of our learned brother Eswara Prasad, J. , in W. P. 8421 / 1991, referred to above, we are not in a position to agree with the view expressed in the above judgment that the Inspector General of Registration has no power to issue directions of general nature to the Registering Officers in the State. We make it clear mat Section 69 confers on the Inspector General of Registration, the power of general superintendence over a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document