Dilip B. Bhosale, J.

1. The order of reference dated 05.08.2015, which has occasioned the constitution of this Full Bench, has been passed by a Division Bench at the request of the learned counsel for the parties having regard to few judgments of the learned single Judges disposing writ petitions, assailing inaction of registering authorities in receiving, registering and delivering the documents presented for registration in exercise of the powers under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short Registration Act). In those judgments, various directions have been issued by the learned single Judges, which, according to the learned counsel for the parties, are either conflicting or inconsistent.

2. Along with these Writ Appeals (W.A. Nos. 343 of 2015, 232 of 2012 and 352 of 2013) several other writ appeals and more than 1200 writ petitions, where similar challenge has been raised, were also listed for hearing before the Division Bench, when the reference order was passed. This Bench is informed that more than 2000 writ appeals/petitions are pending in this Court raising similar challenge awaiting adjudication.

3. The reference order dated 05.08.2015 reads thus:-

"Learned counsel appearing for the parties have jointly requested to refer this batch of writ appeals/petitions to a Full Bench. The request is made in view of the fact that there are five judgments of five learned Judges dealing with Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. One of the judgments is written by one of us (S.V. Bhatt, J). The view taken in all five judgments is not similar.

In view thereof, we direct the office to place this order before the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice on the administrative side for constituting a Full Bench.

It is made clear that since the questions arising from Section 22-A are framed in the five judgments, we are not framing any question as such at this stage. The questions to be considered by the Full Bench will be framed by the said Bench."

4. Before we frame the questions, to be considered by this Bench, we make it clear that we have heard not only learned counsel appearing for the parties in these three appeals, but we also allowed all Advocates appearing for parties, who desired to address the Court, in pending matters, wherein similar issues/questions have been raised, to address the Court. Most of the lawyers adopted the submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel, including Sri D.V. Sitharama Murthy, the Amicus Curaie. Some of the Advocates made submissions in the light of the facts of their respective cases. We make it clear that we are not dealing with any individual case as such and we propose to decide common questions, which perhaps would help to settle legal position and to dispose of all Writ Appeals/Petitions pending in this Court. We will make brief reference to the submissions of learned Advocate Generals and other counsel for the parties, including learned Senior Counsel who made leading arguments, at appropriate stages, in the course of this judgment.

5. Before we look at and consider Section 22-A of Registration Act, it would be necessary and relevant to make a brief reference to the six judgments of different learned Judges dealing with Section 22-A, to which our attention was specifically invited to, so as to understand the exact nature of controversy and factual matrix against which the questions were framed and addressed therein, to enable us to frame and address the questions, covering the field of operation of this provision. The six judgments are in T. Yedukondalu vs. Principal Secretary to Government, 2011 (4) ALT 82 : 2011 ALT (Rev.) 355 (W.P. No. 27752 of 2009 decided on 15.03.2011 by Hon'ble Sri Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar), Dr. Dinakar Mogili vs. State of A.P and Others, 2011 (6) ALD 502 (W.P. Nos. 20050 of 2011 and Batch decided on 08.09.2011 by Hon'ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan), Guntur City house construction Co-operative Society Ltd. Guntur vs. Tahsildar, Guntur Mandal an