Point of Law :
It is a settled proposition of law that an authority cannot issue orders/ office memorandum/executive instructions in contravention of the statutory Rules. However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant it

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri. A. Venkatesh, learned counsel for petitioners in W.P. Nos. 26137, 26207 and 26236 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as counsel for petitioners) and Sri. Krishna Mohana Sikharam learned counsel for petitioners in W.P. No. 22303 of 2019/ respondent no. 3 in W.P. Nos. 26137, 26207 and 26236 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as counsel for respondent) and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for official respondents.

2. In W.P. Nos. 26137, 26207, 26236 of 2019 petitioners are aggrieved by action of registering authority in not registering and receiving the sale-deeds dated 01.08.2018, each for Ac. 1.00 guntas in Sy. No. 133 of Kothwalguda village. In W.P. No. 22303 of 2019, petitioners are opposing release of pending documents concerning land in Sy. Nos. 130, 131 and 133 of Kothwalguda village. In W.P. Nos. 26137, 26207, 26236 of 2019 land to an extent of Acs. 3.00 guntas in Sy. No. 133 of Kothwalguda village is only in issue.

3. Facts as averred by petitioners in W.P. Nos. 26137, 26207, 26236 of 2019 would disclose, the petitioners purchased Ac. 1.00 guntas each in Survey No. 133, situated in Kothwalguda Village, Kavvaguda Gram Panchayat, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District through Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 is the owner of the land and respondent No. 4 is holding power of attorney executed by respondent no. 3. Accordingly, sale-deeds with respect to such sale on individual extents of land executed by Respondent No. 4 were presented before the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad/Respondent No. 2 for registration and release of the said documents. These Writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent no. 2 in registering and releasing the sale-deeds dated 01.08.2018 executed between the petitioners and their vendors.

4.1. According to learned counsel for petitioners the action of Respondent No. 2 in refusing to register the document on the ground that OS No. 1260 of 2017 is filed in the Court of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge RR District at L.B. Nagar by Respondent No. 3 praying to cancel Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession dated 17.09.2014 executed in favour of respondent no. 4 as illegal; would amount to arbitrary exercise of power and authority.

4.2. According to learned counsel, there was no interlocutory order of restraint against registration of deed of conveyance in the said suit at the time of presentation of the documents that could have impeded the execution of the Sale-Deed in favour of petitioners. He would further urge that the Hon’ble XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge RR District at L.B. Nagar granted interlocutory orders of status quo, to be maintained by the parties, on 12.6.2019 whereas the said Sale-Deed dated 01.08.2018 was executed prior to the interlocutory order of 12.06.2019. He would submit that based on a caution notice/legal notice dated 01.08.2018 issued to Respondent No. 2 by Respondent No. 3, documents could not have been refused for registration and release the said Sale-Deeds. Even the interlocutory order only applies to protection of the property by both the parties until the disposal of the suit.

4.3. It is further contended that as the Registering Authority is not a party to the suit, the injunction order dated 12.6.2019 in IA No. 1324 of 2017 is not binding on the Registering Authority and therefore, the Registering Authority cannot refuse to register the documents presented before him on the ground that injunction order is operating.

4.4. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:

(1) Thummalachetty Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration and Others, MANU/AP/0582/2008

(2) Tirumala Venkata Reddaiah Chowdary and Others vs. Potla Krishna Prasad and Others, MANU/AP/0852/2008

(3) Kaliaperumal vs. Rajagopal and Another, (2009) 4 SCC 193

(4) Parasa Nagamalleswara Rao vs. The Sub-Registrar, Eluru and Another, W.P. No. 4099, 4229 o