The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not registering the Attorney document, dated 25.03.2026 and Doc.No.01/2026, Dt.04.04.2026 with respect to subject extent of 1344.28 petitioners General Power assigning pending property situated in Survey No. 71/3 admeasuring an 4-37/1 and 4-37-1/2 PallikelaVariStreeetSq.yards bearing D.Nos. Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District and further seeking the information from the Thasildar, Visakhapatnam urban, Visakhapatnam District vide letter C.No.107/2026, dated 06.04.2026 as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction apart from violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Art.21 and 300A of constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register and release the petitioners General Power Attorney Document bearing pending Doc.No.01/2026, dated 04.04.2026 …”

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

3. Mr. Raviteja Jammalamadaka, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that Respondent No.2 has failed to register the Petitioners’ General Power of Attorney (GPA) document dated 25.03.2026 and has arbitrarily referred the matter to the Tahsildar, which is without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice. He therefore prays for a direction to Respondent No.2 to register and release the said GPA.

4. Sri T. Sanjeev Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No.2 has forwarded the document submitted by the Petitioners along with the General Power of Attorney (GPA) to the Tahsildar for verification of its genuineness. The GPA was appended with a possession certificate and transmitted to the Tahsildar for such verification.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners relied upon Rule 58 of the Registration Act, 1908¹‘the Act’ from which it can be gleaned that the Sub-Registrar is bound to consider objections only on the grounds specifically enumerated therein, as set out below.

(a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be;

(b) that the document is forged;

(c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign oragent, has no right to appear in that capacity’

(d) that the executing party is not really dead as alleged by the party applying for registration; or

(e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic.”

6. It is not the case of the Respondents that the Petitioners’ document is forged or fabricated. No objections have been raised by any party. Respondent No.2 has merely referred the possession certificate to the Tahsildar for verification whether it is forged or genuine one.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar²2025 LiveLaw (SC) 402, wherein at para Nos.15 to 19, it is held as under:

“15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or registering authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The executio