1. Heard Ms.G.Gayathri, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for revision petitioner and Mr. K. Sai Ram Murthy for 1st respondent. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for default against the 2nd respondent vide order dated 19.12.2011.

2. The circumstances relevant for disposal of the civil revision petition stated thus:-

The Sub-Registrar, Mydkur, Kadapa District is the revision petitioner. The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.115 of 2006 against the 2nd respondent for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 07.02.2005. On 10.07.2006, the suit was decreed ex-parte. The 1st respondent filed E.P.No.123 of 2008 under Order 21 Rule 34 of Civil Procedure Code for execution of regular sale deed in terms of ex-parte decree dated 10.07.2006. The sale deed executed by the court on behalf of J.Dr/respondent No.2 after complying with routine formalities was forwarded to revision petitioner for registration.

3. The Sub-Registrar having been confronted with the information on the plaint schedule property as belonging to Government or that the plaint schedule attracts the prohibition envisaged under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 kept the document sent for registration in W.P.No.123 of 2008 as P.No.3 of 2010.

4. From the order dated 11.11.2009 impugned in the C.R.P., it is evident that the non registration of documents presented by the Executing Court under Rule 34 was on account of the two circumstances already stated above. The Executing Court without a decision being communicated on P.No.3 of 2010 by revision petitioner, considers the complaint of respondent No.1 against non-registration and on such information, the executing court assumes that the document presented by the Court ought not to be firstly kept as pending document and secondly on facts, in the case on hand, in view of the earlier presentation and the registration of document for the same Survey number held that the registration should be completed. The Sub-Registrar hence has filed CRP with the leave of the Court and challenges each one of the reasons given by the executing Court as exceeding the procedure provided under Rule 34 of Order 21. For convenience also, to appreciate the contentions of both the parties on the findings recorded by the order impugned, this Court finds it convenient to excerpt the operative portion of the order under challenge which reads thus :

In this case the respondents remained exparte and the Hon’ble Court has already drafted a registered sale deed and send the same to the Sub-Registrar, Mydukur for registration by following due process of law. But the Sub-Registrar, Mydukur did not register the same stating that the property is a Government property and that he has specific Instruction from the Government not to register the properties pertaining to Government and file the records showing that the property is an assigned land and as such it cannot be registered and after the said submission of records by the Sub-Registrar Mydukur the matter was posted for hearing of the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the registration authority has been registering the said land since last 50 years and to prove the same he has filed a encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Mydukur pertaining to the petition schedule property for 50 years and it shows that the said land was sold in the year 1973 on 27.06.1973 to the A.Subbamma and again on 18.2.1983 there was another transactions and the said A.Subbamma sold the same to B.Salamma who is the J.Dr. in this petition. So the E.P. filed by the petitioner clearly reveals that the property under dispute is being registered by the registering authority since in the year, 1973 and to prove his contention the petitioner relied on a decision of the A.P. Honble High Court in P.Suresh and another Vs. the A.P. State represented by District Collector, Kadapa and others reported in 2009 (1) Law Summary page 421, wherein it was held