Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
S. Nagi Reddy vs Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Registration ... on 21 November, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1999(4)ALD81, 1999(4)ALT556
ORDER
1. The petitioner purchased 275 square yards of plot comprised in plot No.12 which is apart of Survey No.57/3 of Tirupathi Village. According to the petitioner, he went to the office of the respondent to submit the sale document for regislration on 24-4-1997 and again on 22-5-1997, 9-7-1997 and on 16-7-1997. But the respondent refused to accept the document without assigning any reason. Under those circumstances the petitioner filed the writ petition in this Court on 18-8-1997.
2. In response to the rule nisi, the respondent has filed a counter. In the counter besides stating about the communication received from the custodian relating to the lands comprised in Survey No.57/3 of Tirupathi Village belonging to Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi, in para 3, he has stated that the petitioner never approached him for registration of the document and whenever the petitioner submits the document the same would be processed as per the provisions of the Registration Act. On the face of it, it appears to me that the statement of the respondent that the petitioner did not approach him at any time for registration of the document seems to be totally incorrect. In appreciation of such pleadings filed by the parties, the Court cannot keep the common sense in cold storage. The petitioner having purchased the land by way of a registered sale-deed wanted to get it registered in the office of the respondent and therefore it is quiet reasonable to think that he had approached the respondent, and it is abnormal to think that without approaching the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court straightaway seeking a direction. The allegation of the petitioner is quiet fortified by the disclosure of the respondent himself that he had received instructions from the custodian of Endowments directing him not to register the documents. The Director of Endowments is not an authority under the Registration Act and the respondent who is a statutory authority cannot abdicate his power and refuse to register the document at the dictation of an extraneous authority. It is a clear case where the respondent has failed to perform his statutory duty at the dictation of an extraneous authority like the Custodian of Endowments.
3. In the result the writ petition is allowed. A direction shall be issued to the respondent to receive the sale-deed and proceed to register the same in accordance with law if the document is in order and if the petitioner fulfils the requirements of law. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of one month from the date on which the petitioner presents the sale-deed for registration. No costs.