The over jealous attitude of the Revenue and Stamps and Registration officials has been time and again driving the citizens to take recourse to the remedy of judicial review. This case is a paradigm where the property, which was shown as a private property in the extract of Register of Holding, is treated as Government land and the request of the petitioner for its registration was rejected by the registering authority-respondent No.5, which was confirmed by the appellate authority-respondent No.4.

One Guduru Rachaiah is stated to be the absolute owner, possessor and pattadar of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.4.84 cents in Sy.No.147/2 of Pedda Rangapuram Village, Pulivendla Mandal, Kadapa District. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the extract of Register of Holding for the period between 1914 and 1955 would amply corroborate this claim. That the said Rachaiah has sold the land to the petitioner through registered document No.568/72 dated 12.04.1972. When the petitioner intended to sell the property to the third parties in April, 2011, respondent No.5 refused to receive the document on the ground that the land belongs to the Government. The petitioner filed W.P.No.30994 of 2012 feeling aggrieved by the refusal of respondent No.5 to receive the document. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 05.10.2012 with the direction to respondent No.5 to receive and process the document without insisting on ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the revenue authorities. Accordingly, the petitioner has presented the document on 31.10.2012 before respondent No.5 for registration. Having received the said document, respondent No.5 has passed an order refusing to register the sale deed vide his endorsement dated 31.10.2012 on the sole ground that Sy.No.147/2 is classified as Assessed Waste (AW) and that the same is included in the list of Government lands furnished by Tahsildar, Pulivendula, vide his proceedings dated 05.02.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before respondent No.4 and it was taken on file as Appeal No.5 of 2012. The said appeal was disposed of by respondent No.4, by order dated 27.11.2012, whereby he has confirmed the order of respondent No.5. Assailing both these orders, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

As noted above, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the revenue record clearly shows that the land is a private land. In support of his plea that it was a private land, the petitioner filed a copy of the Register of Holding, a perusal of which would show that the name of Guduru Rachaiah is shown as the owner of the property admeasuring Ac.4.84 cents in Sy.No.147/2. This extract shows that the same has been issued by the Office of the Sub-Registrar. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the pattadar passbook issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer as far back as 30.06.1994. It is not disputed that the petitioner has purchased the property under a registered sale deed on 12.04.1972. In the face of this overwhelming documentary evidence to show that the petitioner is the owner of the property, the only ground on which respondent No.5 declined to register the sale deed and respondent No.4 confirmed the refusal order of respondent No.5 is that in the list furnished by the then Tahsildar in the year 2007, the property was shown as AW belonging to the Government. Respondent Nos.4 and 5, being the independent functionaries exercising powers and discharging duties under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), are bound to act independently by exercising their mind without being blindly guided by the instructions of the Tahsildar or the other revenue officials of the District. The mere fact that in the opinion of the Tahsildar, the property is the Assessed Waste belonging to the Government and he has accordingly included the property in his list sent to the registering authority would not make the