DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT Vs. M. SADASIVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The questions involved and the challenge raised in this batch of writ petitions and the writ appeals are similar and, therefore, learned counsel for the parties, in particular for the petitioners and the appellants, have agreed for disposal of the petitions/appeals by this common order in the light of the Full Bench judgment in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others v/s. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others (W.A. 343 of 2015, 232 of 2012 and 352 of 2013) dated 23 -12 -2015 ( : 2016 (1) ALT 550 (F.B.))

(2.) The writ petitions including the writ petitions from which the writ appeals arise, were filed assailing inaction of registering authorities in receiving, registering and delivering the documents presented for registration in exercise of powers under Sec. 22 -A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short "Registration Act"). The six judgments, referred to in the Full Bench judgment, of the learned single Judges, disposing of large number of writ petitions, on certain issues/questions where (sic. were) either conflicting or inconsistent and in view thereof reference to the Full Bench was made. The Full Bench after making detailed reference to the six judgments from which the writ appeals arise, framed the following questions for consideration: -

(3.) The Full Bench to which one of us (Justice Dilip B. Bhosale, Acting Chief Justice) was member in depth considered the provisions contained in Sec. 22 -A and summarized its conclusions in paragraph 36 as follows: -