Nisar Ahmad Kakru, J.

1 The controversy owes its origin to a communication of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon bearing Rc.No. 1/123/2005, dated 26-05-2007 which may be noticed;

“I am to inform that the land in Sy.No.538 measuring Ac.13.10 Gts situated at Palakurthy Village and Mandal is the Sethsindi Inam land and there is a Title deed dispute between the Inamdars and the Purchasers and appeal case is pending in the Court of the R.D.Os Jangaon and also in SC & ST Commission.

Since it is Inam land, the transactions should not be entertained until the Ownership Right Certificate issued by the competent authority i.e., R.D.O. under the provisions of AP (TA) Inam Abolition Act, 1955.

I therefore request you to not to entertain any registration over the above said Sy.No. till the matter is disposed off and further instructions issued by the Commission.”

2. The above said communication unveils a restraint, placed by the Revenue Divisional Officer Jangaon on the Sub Registrar, preventing him from entertaining the “Sale deed” for registration, executed by the writ petitioner (appellant herein), in respect of Survey No. 538, situate at Palakurthy Village and Mandal, Warangal District, until disposal of the dispute of title by the civil court and SC and ST Commission (for short Commission) and unless directed by the Commission. In response to the communication of the Revenue Divisional Officer Jangaon, the Sub Registrar wrote a letter to the writ petitioner as follows;

“This is to inform you that Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, vide his letter in Rc.No. 1/123/2005 dt. 26.5.2007 has informed that there is title dispute in respect of land in Sy.No.538 of Palakurthy Village and unless ownership certificate is produced from the said authority, no dealings shall be done in respect of the land in the said survey number. Therefore please be informed that in the absence of any such certificate from the above authority, registration cannot be done. Copy of letter dt. 26 5 2007 in Rc.NO.1/123/2005 received from RDO, Jangaon is enclosed along with this letter.”

3. Having refused to entertain the sale deed vide above communication, it came to be questioned by the writ petitioner – appellant by medium of a Writ Petition 32362 of 2010 but of no avail to him because of its dismissal vide judgment dated 23rd of December 2010, impugned herein.

4. The two communications, one by the Revenue Divisional Officer Jangaon, directing not to entertain the document and the other in compliance thereto by the Sub Registrar, conveying refusal to entertain the document, have given rise to a short but an important question, summarized hereunder;

“Whether Sub-Registrar could refuse to entertain a document for registration even before its presentation.”

5. To answer the question, the fall out of the refusal to entertain the document, needs to be understood in its right perspective which in essence, prevents the writ petitioner – appellant from presenting the document for registration, obviously it amounts to refusal to register the document but without its scrutiny in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. Is such power available to the Sub Registrar, the judgment of the learned single judge, impugned before us, does not suggest anything which could persuade us, to concede such power to the Sub-Registrar, thus it has become imperative upon us, to examine the Registration Act, 1908 (Act hereinafter) comprehensively, to find out the provision if any therein, which would empower the Sub Registrar, to refuse to entertain a document, for registration on the direction of a functionary of the State but we find none. Amazingly the Sub Registrar has acted under the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, least appreciating that the Revenue Divisional Officer is a stranger to the scheme of the Act / Rules who has no control over the Sub Registrar and has no power to give a direction to him not to entertain the document