The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no period of limitation for registration of a document once it is presented and accepted for registration, and that the registration of the document at a later stage, after a lapse of 22 years, cannot be faulted.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, wherein the following prayer is made:

“To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 (registration authorities of Medchal-Malkajgiri District) in registering a Sale-Deed dated 04.10.1997, pending document No. 1514 of 1997, in the year 2019 as registered document No. 15353 of 2019 and thereby conferring title of the land admeasuring Ac. 1.07 guntas in Sy. No. 247 of Yapral village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, in favour of respondents 5 to 10 (after 22 years) is arbitrary and illegal and further declare that title of the petitioners has remained unaffected and no title has passed on to respondents 5 to 10 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 1.07 guntas in Sy. No. 247 of Yapral village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to de-register the document No. 15353 of 2019 and grant such other relief...”

2. Heard the submissions of Sri. Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 to 10 and perused the record.

3. The facts that led to filing of this writ petition, in brief, are that the subject land i.e. land admeasuring Ac. 1.07 guntas in Survey No. 247 situated at Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, originally belonged to Mandala Rajalingam (who is no more now), Mandala Anjaneyulu, Mandala Chinna Manemma (who is no more now) and R. Uma. They have jointly executed a sale-deed, dated 04.10.1997, before the 3rd respondent/Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad, selling the said land in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein. The said sale-deed was assigned a pending registration P. No. 1514 of 1997 and was impounded for want of deficit stamp duty by the-then Joint Sub-Registrar-I, RO (OB), Ranga Reddy District. Subsequently, in the year 2019, i.e. after about 22 years, the said document was registered as Document No. 15353/2019, by the Joint Sub-Registrar-I (R.O.) Ranga Reddy District, after collecting deficit stamp duty and penalty. The respondent Nos. 7 to 10 are the subsequent purchasers of the subject land from respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The petitioners filed the instant writ petition to declare the action of the official respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in registering the pending document of the year 1997 (P. No. 1514 of 1997) as registered document in the year 2019 (Document No. 15353 of 2019) as illegal, arbitrary and for a further declaration that the title of the petitioners remains unaffected and no title has passed on to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and for a consequential direction to official respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to de-register the document No. 15353 of 2019.

4. During the course of hearing, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners did not press the relief of declaration sought in favour of the petitioners. The learned senior counsel restricted his prayer to declare the action of official respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in registering the pending document of the year 1997 as registered document in the year 2019 as illegal and arbitrary.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that the action of the registration authorities in registering a sale-deed after 22 years of its execution is patently arbitrary and ultra-vires to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The time prescribed for registration of a document is four months from the date of its presentation. Though the document in question is presented for registration on 04.10.1997 before the 3rd respondent, it was registered on 31.08.2019, i.e. after a lapse of 22 years, which is illegal. The Registrar concerned ought not have resorted to such practice. Further, registration ha