COMMON ORDER:

M/s. Vasundhara Constructions Private Limited represented by its authorised secretary filed W.P.No.20541 of 2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the intimation of refusal letter issued by respondent No.2 dated 30.11.2019 refusing registration of pending document No.587 of 2019, on the basis of the letter of respondent No.3 dated 28.09.2019 and declare the same as arbitrary, illegal and direct respondent Nos.1 and 2, forthwith register the said document without referring to the objections and claims of respondent No.3 based on the order of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar dated 27.08.2019 in IDT No.19/2015.

T.G.Venkata Krishna filed W.P.No.133 of 2020 under Article

226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of respondent No.4, refusing to entertain the documents on the basis of the letter addressed by the Executive Officer in ROC.No.Prop.I/16696/AEO (Prop)/1991 dated 28.09.2019 and the consequential letter issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar in C.No.156/1/2019 dated 16.12.2019 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to entertain the documents submitted by the petitioner for registering the mortgage deed in respect of the property situated in Sy.No.623/3C, Chinthalachenu, 19th Ward, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

Both these petitions are filed claiming identical relief by different petitioners having different extents in Chintalachenu, Tirupati, Chittoor District, and the issue involved in these two petitions is one and the same. Therefore, I am of the view that it is expedient to decide both these petitions by common order taking Writ Petition No.20541 of 2019 as leading petition.

The factual matrix in W.P.No.20541 of 2019 is as follows:

The petitioner is the owner and possessor of immovable

November, 2016 (Phase – 1).

Out of the said flats in the apartment, the petitioner is desirous to sell away part and parcel of immovable property i.e. built up area bearing flat No.1202, 12th Floor admeasuring 843 sft. and in that process, it has executed a sale deed dated 21.11.2019 in favour of Koppula Gayathry Rao and WG.CDR K.N. Rao and the sale deed has been presented for registration before respondent No.1, and it was assigned pending document No.587 of 2019.

By the impugned intimation of refusal dated 30.11.2019, the

land held by respondent No.3.

Aggrieved by the said order of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 3 (4) of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer in Appeal No.G/1024/2019, which is pending. It is further contended that the refusal of registration of the pending document by respondent No.1 on the letter of respondent No.2 is illegal and ultra vires to the provisions contained in Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908. Since the document has been refused for registration on extraneous and alien grounds under the Registration Act, the domestic remedy of appeal to the District Registrar is not an adequate and effective alternate remedy. The specific grounds urged by the petitioner questioning the legality and validity of refusal order are as follows:

(a) Respondent No.3 has no authority under law to correspond with registering authorities, requesting to refuse registration of documents in respect of some land claimed by it. Refusal of registration is governed by Section 22A of the Registration Act. Unless and until a ryotwari patta is granted in favour of respondent No.3, it cannot assert ownership over the subject land; and that no obligation is cast on the registration authorities to oblige the request of respondent No.3. Thus respondent No.3 is a persona non- grata in the matter of registration of documents by respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the statutory authorities. Hence refusal of registration of the pending document on the basis of the letter of respondent No.3 is illegal and contrary to law.

(b) An order passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar under Section 3 (3) of the Act is not a final ord