NAGASURI MAHESH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner, as narrated by the learned counsel for petitioner, Sri T.C.Krishnan, is that the nd respondent - Sub Registrar has refused to receive the documents presented by the petitioner for Registration of the house property situated within Kavali Municipality, Nellore District and process for registration.

(2.) Learned counsel would strenuously argue that whenever a document is presented before the authorities for registration, the primary duty of the registering authority is to receive the document, scrutinize the same and if the document is not an objectional one, collect proper stamp duty and registration charges and then, effect registration. In contrast, if the document is an objectionable one i.e., if the document falls within the ambit of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the Registering Authority has to succinctly pass a speaking order to that effect and return the document. Referring to Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1988, learned counsel would submit that a duty is caste on the registering authority to make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such an order in Book No.2 and endorse the words 'Registration Refused' on the document and furnish a copy of the order passed by him to the concerned party. However, without there being any plausible reason, the 2nd respondent has totally abdicated his avowed duty and thereby, caused any amount of hardship to the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader acknowledging the responsibility of the Sub Registrar in terms of Section 71 of Registration Act, requested the Court to pass suitable orders.

(3.) It is seen, of late, unfortunately similar types of complaints are coming from the parties in the form of writ petitions saying that concerned Sub Registrar has flatly refused to entertain the document, leaving aside scrutinizing the same and writing a speaking order of refusal. This is a flagrant violation of the duty caste on a Sub Registrar.