This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in including the property situated in Sy.Nos.559/2, 3 and 4 of Yerraguntla Village and Mandal, Kadapa District, in the list of prohibited properties, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to register and release the gift deed dated 07.07.2012 in respect of Ac.3.00 of land in the above said survey numbers, without reference to communication dated 09.04.2012 sent by respondent No.2. I have heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Smt. Ch.Veda Vani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the above-mentioned property. He has traced the history of the property qua the various transactions that have taken place right from 27.08.1945. When the petitioner sought to present a gift deed for registration, respondent No.1 made an endorsement refusing to register the document on two grounds, viz.,, that the property belongs to Zilla Parishad, Kadapa, as per communication in Ref.No.B/130/2012, dated 09.04.2012, of respondent No.2 and that the pattadar passbook is not produced by the petitioner.

At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless a notification as required under Section 22-A (1) (e) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’) prohibiting registration of the property in question is issued, respondent No.1 is not bound by the communication made by respondent No.2 to the effect that the property belongs to respondent No.3, which is a local body.

With regard to the second objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that in view of Section 6-D (2) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘1971 Act’), his client is bound to produce the pattadar pass book for registration.

As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, under clause (e) of Section 22-A (1) of the Act, any documents or class of documents belonging to the Central and State Governments, local bodies, educational, cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions etc., in respect of which a notification prohibiting registration is issued by the State Government, are prohibited from registration. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that any such notification has been issued. However, in my opinion, mere absence of notification would not preclude respondent No.1 from considering whether prima facie the property belongs to the local or other bodies as mentioned in sub-clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A of the Act. While in a case of notification, the registering authority has no option except to refuse registration, even in the absence of a notification, the registering authority can examine whether the person who presented the document has prima facie right to execute the conveyance deed. Respondent No.1 has relied upon the communication of respondent No.2, whereunder he has opined that the property in question belongs to Zilla Parishad. Even though this communication of respondent No.2 does not bind respondent No.1, he can still examine the claim of the party who executed the document and applied for registration. If, despite the opinion of the revenue authority that the property belongs to a local body, the registering authority is satisfied that there is no basis for such opinion and that the party who executed the document has a legal right to execute such document in respect of the property in question, the registering authority can still register the property.

With regard to the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has placed before this Court order dated 03.08.2012 in W.P.No.23759 of 2012, a perusal of which would show that the petitioner has earl