Point of Law: If the order of the Registrar directs the document to be registered and the document is duly presented for registration within thirty days after the making of such order, the Sub-Registrar shall obey the same, and thereupon shall, so far as may be practicable, follow the procedure prescribed in sections 58, 59 and 60; and such registration shall take effect as if the document had been registered when it was first duly presented for registration.

ORDER:

1. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the impugned Refusal Order No.92/2019, dated 24.06.2019 issued by respondent No.3 in refusing to register document No.P/929/2019, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.l is the absolute owner and possessor of open land bearing plot No.231, admeasuring 300 Sq.yards, equivalent to 250.8 Sq.mtrs in Sy.Nos.218/11, 218/12 and 218/13, within the approved layout of Kanti Vanam, situated at Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under a sale deed dated 15.11.1997 from its original owners Smt.Lali Bhai and others. The said sale deed was validated vide endorsement U/s.42 of Act II of 1898 vide No.E/121/7263 of 1999, dated 23.12.1999 by paying deficit stamp duty.

It is further case of the petitioner that petitioner No.1 intended to gift the said plot in favour of petitioner No.2, who is her son. Accordingly, a gift settlement deed was prepared and presented before the 2nd respondent. However, the said document was not received and processed by him for the reasons best known to him. The 2nd respondent being the statutory authority under the Registration Act, is bound to receive and process the document presented before him and if the document is in accordance with law, has to register the same, otherwise, he shall communicate the reasons for refusal of registration. However, the 2nd respondent did not receive the document itself for registration. Upon which, the petitioners filed W.P.No.9000 of 2019 before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 04.06.2019, permitting the petitioners to present their documents for registration before the Sub-Registrar concerned and further directed that in the event of the documents are other wise found to be in order and in compliance with the requirements of the Act of 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Sub-Registrar concerned shall complete the registration formalities and release the documents. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the petitioners have presented the document before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent assigned document No.P929/2019. However, the 3rd respondent on erroneous view of law and facts refused the document for registration on the ground that the document is based on the validated document as a link document and validated document cannot be taken as a link document vide Ends.No.CIG Mail/Ar/2008, dated 02.01.2008.

It is further case of the petitioners that the reasons mentioned for refusal is contrary to law. The 3rd respondent has not refused the document for want of jurisdiction or on denial of execution. The reasons mentioned in the impugned order is unknown to law and are passed without jurisdiction. Though the 3rd respondent relied upon the circular instruction, but such instruction cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act. Further it is not the bounden duty of the 3rd respondent to look for the link or title of the property mentioned in the document put for registration. The document was refused not on the ground that there is deficit stamp duty, or not in accordance with Registration Act or the property is listed in prohibitory list. The document was validated by collecting the deficit stamp duty by the registering authorities, which is admissible in evidence. The 3rd respondent exceeded his jurisdiction in refusing the document for registration. Though an appeal is provided to District Registrar, but on the face of the impugned proceedings the reasons recorded by the 3rd respondent are illegal and out of jurisdiction and as such, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 along with the writ petition to suspend the impugned Refusal Order No.92/2019, dated 24.06.2019, issued by the 3rd respondent and this Court while admitting the writ petition passed interim orders dated 06.0