APHC010306242026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the Twenty Third day of June Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 16325 of 2026 Between: Smt. Kakarlapudi Parvathi Devi ...Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. R. Siva Sai Swarup Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Registration and Stamps The Court made the following: 2 BSB,J W.P.No.16325 of 2026 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 3 in not receiving and registering the document presented by the petitioner for registering the land in the name of the petitioner for the property i.e., part of plot No.25 i.e., 193.3 Sq. Yds. in S. No. 210/1AM, S. No. 210/1B, S. No. 210/1C, S. No. 209/2 of Devarapalli Mandal, Devarapalli Village within the limits of K. Kotapadu Sub-Registrar's office / respondent No.3 as illegal, unlawful, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of rulings of this court, violation of Article 14, 19, 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent No.3 / Sub-Registrar, K. Kotapadu, Anakapalli District to Receive and Register the aforesaid document presented by the petitioner in her name and to pass other order…” 2. The case of the petitioner is, stated briefly, as follows: The petitioner intended to purchase a part of plot No.25 i.e., 193.3 Sq. Yds. in S. No. 210/1AM, S. No. 210/1B, S. No. 210/1C, S. No. 209/2 of Devarapalli Mandal, Devarapalli Village within the limits of K. Kotapadu Sub-Registrar's office / respondent No.3, from its original owner by name Gullipalli Venkata Ramana W/o. late Sanyasinaidu. When the document of sale deed was presented before the respondent No. 3 for the purpose of its registration in the first week of June, 2026, it was refused. Hence, this writ petition was filed. 3 BSB,J W.P.No.16325 of 2026 3. Sri Ravuri Leela Sai Sampath, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse any document without assigning reason as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of this High Court in W.P. No. 34463 of 2012, dated 11.12.2025 wherein, at paragraph Nos. 7 to11, it is held as follows: “7. In the present case, the mode and method of Registration and the duties of the Registrar are covered under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. As per Section 71 of the Registration Act, the Registrar is not entitled to orally reject an Application brought before him for Registration. Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, mandates that the Registrar shall consider the Application and pass a speaking order in accordance with law within a reasonable time. 8. This Court has time and again reiterated these Principles and Legal Position regarding the Statutory Obligation of the Registrar to pass a Speaking Order under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 by following the procedure laid down under Rules 161 to 164 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908. This position of law has been clearly set out in the judgment of this Court in Salimeni Ravindra Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (W.P.No.10392 of 2021 dated 15.06.2021). 9. This Court, having perused the judgment of this Court in Salimeni Ravindra’s case (W.P.No.10392 of 2021 dated 15.06.2021), is of the view that the issues involved in the present Writ Petition are squarely covered by the said judgment. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Joint Registrar-1, Ongole (Respondent No.2), to receive the documents from the Writ Petitioner and process the same in 4 BSB,J W.P.No.16325 of 2026 accordance with the procedure as indicated and as dealt with in this judgment dated 15.06.2021 in W.P.No.10392 of 2021. No order as to costs. 10. The Writ Petitioner is directed to submit the copies of this Order along with the photocopy of the Judgment of this Court which is relied-on i.e., Salimeni Ravindra’s case (W.P.No.10392 of 2021 dated 15.06.2021) to the Joint Registrar-1, Ongole (Respondent No.2) for better appreciation and for following the procedure in accordance with law in future cases as well. 11. Needless to state that on presentation of the documents to the Joint Registrar-1, Ongole (Respondent No.2), the said Joint Registrar-1, Ongole shall pass a Speaking Order as per law within a period of four (04) weeks in the event he/she is not inclined to register the document.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3954 of 2025 dated 07.04.2025 in K. Gopi Vs. The Sub-Registrar and others, wherein at paragraph No. 15, it is held as follows: “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 5 BSB,J W.P.No.16325 of 2026 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 execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.” 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps represented that he has no written instructions, however, he conceded the legal proposition. He further submitted that if the petitioner presents the documents, the concerned Sub-Registrar will certainly pass a speaking order, in case the registration is refused. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to submit documents afresh to the Sub-Registrar / respondent No.3 and direct the Sub-Registrar / respondent No.3 to pass an appropriate speaking order, in case registration is refused. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to submit documents afresh to the respondent No.3. On receipt of such documents, the respondent No.3 shall pass an appropriate speaking order as per law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 23.06.2026 NSM 6 BSB,J W.P.No.16325 of 2026 13 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 16325 of 2026 Dated: 23.06.2026 NSM