This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 26-7-2005 in A.P.No.1 of 2002 passed by District Registrar, Vizianagaram, respondent No.2.

2. Under document dated 2-8-2002 an extent of Ac.1.08 cents of dry land in old Survey No.197/1 (New Survey Nos.197/2CP and 197/2E.2P) of Kothavalasa village and Mandal, Vizianagarm District, was purported to be sold in favour of respondent No.4 by the petitioners for a sale consideration of Rs.1.00 lakh. The said document described the names of as many as 15 persons, including the two petitioners herein, as the vendors. However, it was signed by the petitioners alone. The said document was presented for registration by respondent No.4 before respondent No.1. On receipt of the said document, respondent No.1 issued summons to the petitioners. On 24-10-2002 the petitioners were present before respondent No.1. On 28-10-2002 respondent No.1 passed order, whereby he refused to register the document on the ground that as the petitioners did not speak anything about the execution of the sale deed, their silence was treated as willful denial of execution of the document. Thereupon, respondent No.4 filed an application before respondent No.2 under Section 73 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short "the Registration Act"). Respondent No.2 issued summons to both the parties and recorded their oral testimony. Respondent No.4, apart from examining himself as PW.1, examined PWs.2 and 3 (the attestors) and PW.4 (the scribe). On behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 was examined as RW.1. Respondent No.2 also admitted Exs.A.1 to A.3 - the pattadar passbook, title deed and the document in question respectively. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, respondent No.2 held that he was satisfied that the petitioners duly executed the document and that the provisions of Sections 19,20,21,23 and 32 of the Registration Act have been duly complied with. Accordingly, respondent No.2 directed respondent No.1 to register the suit document.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4 it is averred that respondent No.1 registered the document on 30-7-2005, even before an interim order was passed by this Court on 20-8-2005 in this Writ Petition.

4. At the hearing, Sri K.Subrahmanya Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the order of respondent No.2 directing registration of the document suffers from manifest errors and resulted in registration of a document in violation of the mandatory statutory provisions. He further submitted that while the suit document was prepared in the names of as many as 15 persons, only two persons have signed at the time of registration, and that, therefore, the same is not liable for registration. Section 32A of the Registration Act, contends the learned Senior Counsel, makes it mandatory that every person presenting any document at the proper registration office under Section 32 shall affix his passport size photograph and fingerprints to the document and that where such document relates to the transfer of ownership of immovable property, the passport size photograph and fingerprints of each buyer and seller of such property mentioned in the document shall also be affixed to the document. The learned counsel contended that no such procedure is followed. He also contended that the petitioners were made to sign the document by respondent No.4 by misrepresenting that the same was only a lease deed; that the petitioners bonafide signed the document and later realized that the document prepared was one for an outright sale and that, therefore, they did not agree for registration. He further submitted that under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of the A.P. Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 (for short "1975 Rules"), the registering officer shall, before registering an instrument, satisfy himself that the party has enclosed to the instrument a statement, giving the market value in respe