Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. In this batch of six Writ Petitions, the Petitioners are all members of the Animal Husbandry Department Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Visakhapatnam (hereinafter called the "Society"). Land admeasuring Ac.18.78 cts was sold by the Government to the "Society" for Rs. 11,38,06,800/- (Rupees eleven crores thirty eight lakhs six thousand and eight hundred only) and, on receipt of the consideration, the District Collector executed a registered sale deed in favour of the "Society" before the 3rd Respondent vide document No. 5148/2006 dated 30.10.2006. The Society claims to have developed the land thereafter, and to have laid several plots therein. The Petitioners herein were allotted and sold different plots in the land purchased by the "Society" from the Government. The "Society" executed a sale deed in their favour which was presented before the 3rd Respondent for registration.

2. By his order dated 29.07.2010, the 3rd Respondent refused to register the sale deed on the ground that, in the year 2007, the District Collector had informed the Revenue Divisional Officer to take back the land conveyed earlier to the "Society", and hand over the same to VUDA; VUDA would allot alternate land to the "Society" from out of other lands handed over to it by the revenue department; the Deputy Registrar of co-operative societies had issued orders in ARC No. 1 of 2010-11 that the title and possession of the land was in dispute; and, therefore, the document was not fit for registration.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 73 of the Registration Act, vide appeal No. 16/10, before the 2nd Respondent who, by order dated 29.09.2010, dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the 3rd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent held that, since the Government was keen on taking back the land that was alienated to the society earlier, the Government had implicit interest in the land and, consequently, it was the bounden duty of the registering authority to safeguard the interests of the Government; it was a mandatory stipulation for registration that the layout should be approved by VUDA; and, since the society has not complied with the same, the sale could not be registered.

4. Sri S. Rajan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would submit that, once the Government had sold the land for valuable consideration by way of a registered sale deed in favour of the "Society", it ceased to be the owner of the land; the title, thereafter, vested with the "Society" which had purchased the land; the "Society" was competent to alienate the land in favour of its members including the Petitioners herein; as the land no longer belonged to the Government, Section 22A of the Act was not attracted; and, in the absence of a prohibition under Section 22A, the registering authority was bound to register the sale deed more so as mere registration did not, by itself, confer title.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the District Registrar, the fact that the land was purchased from the Government by the Animal Husbandry Department Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd, Visakhapatnam is admitted. It is, however, stated that possession of land of Ac.18.78 cts, situated in Sy. No. 133 of Chinagadili village, was taken back by the Government through the District Collector, Visakhapatnam; possession was handed over to VUDA by the Revenue department on 24.01.2007, in compliance with the orders of the District Collector dated 20.01.2007; VUDA, in turn, would allot suitable lands to the "Society" from other lands handed over to it by the Revenue Department; transfer of immovable property, by way of sale deeds, executed by unauthorised persons cannot be registered in view of the prohibition under Section 22A of the Act; the 3rd Respondent had rightly refused registration of the document; the Government is particular of taking back the land from the society which reveals its implicit interest; it is the