S.V. Bhatt, J.

Heard learned Government Pleader (Stamps and Registration) for appellants and Mrs. Hemalatha for respondent.

2. Respondents in writ petition are the appellants. Through the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with costs and issued the following directions:

“Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to be paid by the first respondent to the petitioner; if any document is presented by the petitioner before the second respondent, he shall register the same in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and Stamp Act, 1908 without reference to any prohibitory list communicated to the second respondent by the District Collector, Chittoor. If the State has any claim of the said property, it is open to the State to obtain declaration of its title in a proper forum and recover the possession thereof”.

3. Mr. Korrapati Subba Rao contends that the order under appeal ought not to have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity to the appellants herein to file counter affidavit and contest the writ prayer. He further contends that the writ prayer does not challenge notification issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and that according to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23598 of 2017 to which one of us (SVBJ) is a Member clearly discloses that the subject land is classified as Government land and, therefore, this Court preserved to the petitioner therein the remedy under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. On the other hand, in the case on hand, without there being adjudication of primary facts in issue between the parties, the writ petition is allowed and direction is issued to receive the document as and when presented by sole respondent for registration. He further points out that by reference to Section 22-A of the Registration Act and Section 4 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act in all the writ petitions filed with a grievance under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the proper and necessary parties are the District Collector and Tahsildar of subject matter in the writ petition, for according to him, the Sub-Registrar even while acting under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, acts only on the inputs given by the Revenue, Endowment, Wakf etc., Therefore, the registration or refusal of registration of such document must be in the presence of Revenue, Endowment, Wakf etc., as the case may be. The practical or procedural difficulty is that filing a writ petition without proper and necessary party results only in another round of litigation and at that time, the objection under Order II Rule 2 CPC is available to respondents. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the order under appeal and fairly states that the respondent, if has a grievance on any of the aspects viz., resumption order which the appellants are relying on and/or inclusion of subject land as Government land, can work out the remedies under the ROR Act before the Joint Collector.

4. Mr. Subba Rao by drawing our attention to a few annexures filed along with the appeal contends that the respondent does not have title inasmuch as the documents through which semblance of right is claimed are not valid and tenable.

5. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent contends that the respondent is the absolute owner and possessor and according to her, there is no proceeding on resumption and the appellants are unilaterally treating the land in R.S.No.2/7 situated at No.4, Kothapalem, Renigunta Mandal in an extent of Acs. 02-81 Cts as Government land and it is impermissible and the contention is contrary to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

6. We have perused the record and noted the rival submissions.

7. Without reiterating the circumstances already adverted to, we are prima facie of the view that disposing of the writ petition without affording appellants to