Nisar Ahmad Kakru, C.J:— The controversy owes its origin to a communication of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon bearing Rc. No. 1/123/2005, dated 26.5.2007 which may be noticed;
“I am to inform that the land in Sy. No. 538 measuring Acs.13.10 Gts situated at Palakurthy Village and Mandal is the Sethsindi Inam land and there is a Title deed dispute between the Inamdars and the Purchasers and appeal case is pending in the Court of the R.D.Os, Jangaon and also in SC & ST Commission.
Since it is Inam land, the transactions should not be entertained until the Ownership Right Certificate issued by the competent authority i.e, R.D.O under the provisions of A.P (TA) Inam Abolition Act, 1955.
I therefore request you to not to entertain any registration over the above said Sy. No. till the matter is disposed off and further instructions issued by the Commission.”
2. The above said communication unveils a restraint, placed by the Revenue Divisional Officer Jangaon on the Sub-Registrar, preventing him from entertaining the “Sale deed” for registration, executed by the writ petitioner (appellant herein), in respect of Survey No. 538, situate at Palakurthy Village and Mandal, Warangal District, until disposal of the dispute of title by the civil Court and SC and ST Commission (for short Commission) and unless directed by the Commission. In response to the communication of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, the Sub-Registrar wrote a letter to the writ petitioner as follows:
“This is to inform you that Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, vide his letter in Rc. No. 1/123/2005 dated 26.5.2007 has informed that there is tide dispute in respect of land in Sy. No. 538 of Palakurthy Village and unless Ownership Certificate is produced from the said authority, no dealings shall be done in respect of the land in the said survey number. Therefore please be informed that in the absence of any such certificate from the above authority, registration cannot be done. Copy of letter dated 26.5.2007 in Rc. No. 1/123/2005 received from RDO, Jangaon is enclosed along with this letter.”
3. Having refused to entertain the sale deed vide above communication, it came to be questioned by the writ petitioner-appellant by medium of a Writ Petition No. 32362 of 2010 but of no avail to him because of its dismissal vide judgment dated 23rd of December 2010, impugned herein. The two communications, one by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, directing not to entertain the document and the other in compliance thereto by the Sub-Registrar, conveying refusal to entertain the document, have given rise to a short but an important question, summarized hereunder:
“Whether Sub-Registrar could refuse to entertain a document for registration even before its presentation.”
4. To answer the question, the fall out of the refusal to entertain the document, needs to be understood in its right perspective which in essence, prevents the writ petitioner-appellant from presenting the document for registration, obviously it amounts to refusal to register the document but without its scrutiny in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Is such power available to the Sub-Registrar, the judgment of the learned Single Judge, impugned before us, does not suggest anything which could persuade us, to concede such power to the Sub-Registrar, thus it has become imperative upon us, to examine the Registration Act, 1908 (Act hereinafter) Page: 637comprehensively, to find out the provision if any therein, which would empower the Sub-Registrar, to refuse to entertain a document, for registration on the direction of a functionary of the State but we find none. Amazingly the Sub-Registrar has acted under the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, least appreciating that tile Revenue Divisional Officer is a stranger to the scheme-of the Act/Rules who has no control over the Sub-Registrar and has no power to give a direction to him not to entertain the document. The direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer is ex facie contrary to the provisions of the Act so is refusal to entertain the document, hence without jurisdiction. We rule so because the Sub-Registrar is the statutory authority who is required to act in accordance with the mandate of the Act and not under the directions of an unauthorized authority. That being the legal position, the Sub-Registrar has no power to refuse to entertain a document for registration on the direction of someone. The question is accordingly answered in the negative.
5. Reverting to the communication impugned before the writ Court, it is manifest, that the Sub-Registrar was prompted by letter of the Revenue Divisional Officer, asking the former not to entertain the document, for, SC & ST Commission is seized of a complaint and because of pendency of a civil suit. Regarding first objection, suffice it to say, that the Commission being absolutely unknown to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, cannot assume a power unto itself, to subjugate the Sub-Registrar. The Commission has no power to place any restraint on the Sub-Registrar, much less to place him under restriction in respect of exercise of his powers, he is invested with, by dint of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, therefore, direction if any by the Commission, preventing the Sub-Registrar to entertain the document, has to be ignored.
6. Now a word about the powers of Sub-Registrar in respect of a document, relating to a property which has become subject-matter of a suit pending in a Court of law. Proceeding in that direction, we make it clear that if a competent Court of jurisdiction places a restraint on the Sub-Registrar from entertaining or registering the document, it has to be obeyed unless direction is vacated by the Court which has passed the direction or is set aside on a judicial examination by a higher Court but pendency of a suit cannot ipso facto, act as prohibition on the statutory powers of registration of the documents vested in the Sub-Registrar under the Act. Significantly there is no direction in the suit against the registration which would prevent the Sub-Registrar from registering the document.
7. The controversy needs to be addressed from yet another angle, that is the impact of the communication of the Sub-Registrar, addressed to the petitioner, which amounts to refusal of the registration without presentation of the document.
8. Is it a permissible course of action, reference to Section 71(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 becomes necessary which reads;
“71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded:—(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2 and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.”
9. Section 71(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 undoubtedly clothes the Sub-Registrar with the authority, to refuse the registration but he has to support the order Page: 638of refusal by reasons to be recorded in his Book No. 2. That is not the end of the matter but the Sub-Registrar has to record refusal to register on the document itself, endorsing the words “registration refused” exception apart, that is a document which relates to the property situate beyond his defined territorial jurisdiction which is admittedly inapplicable to the controversy. The statute having made it obligatory on the Sub-Registrar to record the refusal to register on the document, refusal cannot be even imagined unless document is presented before him. Thus it is legally impermissible for the Sub-Registrar to refuse the registration without presentation of the document.
10. Examining from any angle, this writ appeal merits acceptance and is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and communication of the Sub-Registrar, refusing to entertain the document, impugned before the writ Court is quashed without any order as to costs. As a corollary, the appellants shall be free to present the document before the Sub-Registrar for registration. Needless to say that it shall be entirely for the Sub-Registrar to examine the document and if found to be in conformity with requirement of Registration Act and Rules, register the same or otherwise pass appropriate order, of course, on the touchstone of law governing the field.