( 1 ) THE petitioners have come with a case that they have purchased certain land from Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and they have already paid full consideration in respect of this land situated in village Gota, Survey No. 400. In respect of this, sale document no. 6165 dated 30. 12. 1996 was submitted for registration before the sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad-2 (wadaj ). The grievance of the petitioners is that this document is not being registered by the Sub-Registrar. The petitioners have stated that respondents No. 2 to 7 intended to back out from the transaction. The petitioners had approached the Land Revenue Authority for mutating their names as owners and occupiers in the government record. It is also the case of the petitioners that the village accountant posted Entry No. 2342 dated 19. 1. 1997 to mutate the petitioners names as owners and occupiers of this land. It is also stated that the entry was certified by certifying officer on 29. 4. 1997. It is then stated that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 preferred Appeal no. 111/97 before the Dy. Collector against Entry No. 2342 dated 19. 1. 1997 but the Dy. Collector decided the matter in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 to 7. The petitioners preferred Appeal No. 165/97 before the District Collector and those proceedings at the instance of the petitioners are pending. It appears that on the basis of the order passed by the Dy. Collector, Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 threatened to disturb the possession of the petitioners and therefore the petitioners preferred Civil Suit No. 732/96 in the Court of civil Judge (S. D) at Mirzapur-Ahmedabad and sought an interim injunction. According to the petitioners ad-interim relief to maintain status-quo was granted and this order is still operative. It is also stated that the Respondents No. 2 to 7 also instituted a Civil Suit No. 52/97 in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D), Mirzapur praying for the cancellation of the document dated 30. 12. 1996 i. e. document through which the land is said to have been sold out to the petitioners. On the basis of the disclosures made in the litigation as aforesaid the petitioners have come to know about the communication dated 14. 8. 1997 sent to the Respondent No. 2 by the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad 2 (Wadaj), copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure d shows that as per AUDA-9 the land in question is under reservation and therefore the document is pending for registration.

( 2 ) HAVING come to know about this communication dated 14. 8. 1997 copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure e, an application to obtain certified copy of the order made by the Respondent No. 1 in book no. 2 as per provisions contained in the Registration Act was made. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a pointed reference to Sec. 71 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Averments made in para 8 show that the application moved by the petitioners for the certified copy of the order has not been entertained by the Sub-Registrar and therefore the petitioners are not even in a position to prefer an Appeal under Sec. 72 of the Indian Registration Act. Mr. Bhatt has also argued that Sub-Registrar cannot withhold or refuse the registration of any document with reference to the provision of any other law and he has also argued that even if the land is under reservation as per AUDA there is no ban so far as the transfer of land is concerned and on such ground the Registrar could not withhold or refuse registration. Mr. Bhatt has made a pointed reference to Sec. 12 (k) and Sec. 20 of the Gujarat Town planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. He has submitted that those cases which are covered by Sec. 12 (k) with regard to the draft development plan and the use of the land the consequences which are to follow are provided under Sec. 20 (2 ). He has argued that the land in question has not been acquired and so far no proceedings for acquisition have commenced and the period of ten years as stipulated und