APHC010559482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 29080/2025 Between: 1. KANDANURU RAMA CHARYULU, S/O LATE SESHACHARYULU CHARYULU, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, OCC ARCHAKA, R/O 13/334, NEAR PATHA MARKET AND CHENNAKESAVA SWAMY TEMPLE, PRODDUTUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, YSR DISTRICT, KADAPA. 4. THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, PRODDUTUR, YSR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare in action of the respondent No.3 in not entertaining the appeal preferred by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and against the law prevailed and natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to entertain the appeal preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the orders passed by the 4th respondent dt. 19-03-2025 pending registration number P.No. 19/2025 in accordance with law with in a stipulated period by considering the facts and circumstances in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Petition it is also further prayed that pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, the Honble Court may be to direct the respondent No.3 to receive the appeal aggrieved by the orders dt.19-03-2025 pending registration no. 19/2025 by the 4th respondent authority in the circumstances of the case and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VINJAMURI RANGA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29080 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…pleased to order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare in action of the respondent No.3 in not entertaining the appeal preferred by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and against the law prevailed and natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to entertain the appeal preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the orders passed by the 4th respondent dt. 19-03-2025 pending registration number P.No. 19/2025 in accordance with law with in a stipulated period by considering the facts and circumstances in the interest of justice and pass…” 2. The petitioner herein presented a Gift Deed, executed on 13.03.2024, before the respondent No.4 for registration and the same was refused by respondent No.4, on the ground that according to Section 22B of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), if a property is ordered to be transferred or alienated permanently in favour of third party, the Registering Officer is prohibited to accept a new document for registration, unless the previous document is formally cancelled by a Court order. Since the previous Settlement Deed has not been cancelled, the executants do not have the legal authority to execute a subsequent document, such as the Gift Deed, for the same property. The said order was passed according to Section 71 of the Act. Assailing the said refusal, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 72 of the Act. Page 4 of 6 3. It is pertinent to extract Section 72 of the Act is hereunder: 72. Appeal to Registrar from orders of Sub-Registrar refusing registration on ground other than denial of execution.— (1) Except where the refusal is made on the ground of denial of execution, an appeal shall lie against an order of a Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document to registration (whether the registration of such document is compulsory or optional) to the Registrar to whom such Sub-Registrar is subordinate, if presented to such Registrar within thirty days from the date of the order; and the Registrar may reverse or alter such order. (2) If the order of the Registrar directs the document to be registered and the document is duly presented for registration within thirty days after the making of such order, the Sub-Registrar shall obey the same, and thereupon shall, so far as may be practicable, follow the procedure prescribed in sections 58, 59 and 60; and such registration shall take effect as if the document had been registered when it was first duly presented for registration. 4. Section 72 of the Act clearly envisages that an appeal shall lie against the order of Sub-Registrar in refusing to admit a document for registration. In the present case, the Sub-Registrar has refused to register the document on the ground that since the previous Settlement Deed has not been cancelled, the executants does not have the legal authority to execute a subsequent document. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that against the order passed by the Sub-Registrar, an appeal would lie under Section 72 of the Act. Despite the same, the appellate authority refused to register the appeal. Learned counsel seeks a direction to direct the respondent No.3 to receive and dispose of the appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that did not refute to direct the respondent authorities to receive and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to receive the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.03.2025; examine the same and pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to the petitioner herein. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of the order. There shall be no order as costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 27.10.2025 TVN 173 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29080 OF 2025 Date: 27.10.2025 TVN