O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Draft Memo No.G2/19134/2011, dated 01.12.2011 as illegal and arbitrary and to issue a consequential direction to the 4th respondent to receive and register the document presented by the petitioners for registration in respect of the house bearing D.No.11-465- 16-1-1, Assessment No.7622,to an extent of Ac.0.04 cents situated in Sy.No.190/2 of Podili Gram Panchayat, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

The case of the petitioner is:-

(a) That the ancestors of the petitioner purchased the property in an extent of Ac.0.04 cents situated in Sy.No.190/2 of Podili Gram Pancahyat, Podili and constructed a small thatched house after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority and paying taxes regularly; that concerned authorities allotted House No.11-465-16-1-1.

(b) That originally the subject property was purchased by the ancestors of the petitioner from the Property Association of Baptish Churches Private Limited ( for short “PABC”) represented by its GPA Holder by name Kambalapati Meeraiah. Since the purchase of subject property, the same has been in possession and enjoyment by the ancestors of the petitioner and petitioner as well; that when the petitioner intends to sell away the subject property and approached the 4th respondent for registration, but the 4th respondent refused to register the document basing on the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, vide Draft Memo No.G2/19134/2011, dated 01-12-2011.

(c) That the 2nd respondent has no power to issue a Memo, impugned in this writ petition, under the provisions of the Registration Act and he canto direct his subordinates not to register certain documents without there being any dictum by the competent court.

(d) That the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 2005(2) ALD 807, wherein this court categorically held that Sub-Registrar cannot per se refuse to register the document on the premise of Circular Memos issued by the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration from time to time.

(e) That in the absence of any notification under Section 22-

A of the Registration Act, the registering authorities cannot refuse to register the documents.

(f) That in the instant case, there is neither any notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act nor any dictum by the competent court. Assailing the impugned Memo, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration.

Learned counsel for petitioner straight away takes this court through the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by this Court in WP No.1981 of 2020 as the facts and circumstances of this case are similar to that of this case.

Learned Government Pleader does not refute the submission that the said order covers the matter before this Court in this writ petition.

Relevant paragraphs of the order passed in WP No.1981 of 2020 are extracted hereunder:

“The main ground urged by this petitioner is that when the document is presented for registration, rejection of the same based on the draft Memo No.G2/19134/2011, dated 01.12.2011 with District Registrar, Ongole vide Endorsement No.G1/1382/2011, dated 09.12.2011. The memo was issued in view of the injunction orders passed by the High Court of Madras. The Madras High Court directed based on a letter from Rev.B.M.Sudheer to the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration, State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad not to register any deeds of conveyance by any of the parties to any of the parties in respect of the properties covered under the scheme. But, the order was not communicated to Registrar except the letter of Rev.B.M.Sudheer to the District Registrar, who in turn issued such direction.

According to the order under challenge under Section 71 of the Registration Act, refusal to register a document on the