BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows :- the patitioner was a joint owner of land and building situate at No. 40, m. G. Road, Bangalore along with 3 other persons. On 31-5-80 a release deed was executed by the co-owners who are three in number releasing the property under the deed in favour of the petitioner. The release deed was executed at Madras and registered at Madras before the Joint sub-Registrar who was exercising the power of District Registrar on 8-8-80. The power of registration was exercised under S. 30 (2) of the Indian Registration act. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore for the necessary and consequential changes in the Registry in terms of the Indian Registration Act. However, the Sub Registrar informed the petitioner that no communication or endorsement has been received from the District Registrar of Bangalore. The petitioner contacted the office of the respondent as well as the Madras office in order to ascertain the reason for non- submission of copy of the releases deed. However, on confirmation received at madras that the document had already been despatched to the District Registrar, bangalore, the petitioner approached the respondent's office for necessary steps to be taken in accordance with S 66 and 67 of the Indian Registration Act. Petitioner was assured of prompt action in the matter by the respondent. However, petitioner was kept waiting for over 2 years after he gave the representation 10 the respondent As on today there is virtually a communication gap between the District Registrar, Bangalore and the petitioner on the one hand and predicament of helplessness on the part of the sub Registrar Shivajinagar, Bangalore on the other. The petitioner had no other alternative than to issue a notice through an advocate to the respondent to comply with the provisions of law within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice was met with callousness and ultimately the petitioner had to find his way to this Court through this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE only point for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case a writ of mandamus should be issued to the respondent to compel him to comply with the statutory requirements prescribed under Section 66 (1) and Section 67 of the Indian Registration Act. ( 3 ) THE facts are not contradicted. ( 2 ) THE only point for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case a writ of mandamus should be issued to the respondent to compel him to comply with the statutory requirements prescribed under Section 66 (1) and Section 67 of the Indian Registration Act. ( 3 ) THE facts are not contradicted. No statement of objections is filed. In the circumstances, I have to act on the basis of the information available on record. The petitioner has produced copies of all the documents including a copy of the release deed dated 31-5-1980, a copy of the notice dated 17-3- 87 duly acknowledged by the District registrar, Bangalore. ( 4 ) IT may be necessary to refer to the relevant provision of law in the context. S. 67 of the Indian Registration act provides as follows :"on any document being registered under section 30. sub-section (2) a copy of such document and of the endorsements and certificate thereon shall be forwarded to every Registrar within whose district any part of the property to which the instrument relates is situate, and the Registrar receiving such copy shall follow the procedure prescribed for him in section 66, sub-section (1 ). "this provision of law relates to the procedure to be followed after registration of the document under Section 30 2) of the Act. It is apparent from a reading of this provision that it is the statutory duty of the authority to forward to every registrar within whose District the property is situate covered by the instrument and the registrar receiving such a copy to follow procedure prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 66. Obviously in this case the registering authority is at Madras and the authority receiving the endorsement and certificate at Bangalore is the respondent. Having received the endorsement and the certificate, it is imperative that the respondent should follow the procedure prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 66. ( 5 ) SECTION 66 of the Act reads thus :"on registering any non-testamentary document relating to immoveable property, the Registrar shall forward a memorandum of such document to each Sub-Registrar subordinate to himself in whose sub-district any part of the property is situate. ( 5 ) SECTION 66 of the Act reads thus :"on registering any non-testamentary document relating to immoveable property, the Registrar shall forward a memorandum of such document to each Sub-Registrar subordinate to himself in whose sub-district any part of the property is situate. " ( 6 ) THUS it is the duty of the Registrar at Bangalore to forward a memorandum of the document to the concerned sub-registrar and in the instant case to the Sub-Registrar Shivajinagar, Bangalore in whose sub-district the property is admittedly situated. ( 7 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the provisions contained in Sub- section (1) of Section 66 have not been complied with by the respondent. The fault lay at the doors of the District registrar and not at all the doors of the sub-Registrar Shivajinagar, Bangalore. ( 8 ) TIME and again this Court has impressed upon the statutory authorities and the administrative authorities who are exercising statutory powers that even non-exercise of power amounts to abuse of discretion. The instant case is a striking demonstration of administrative lethargy and callousness. Even after the lapse of 8 years since the release deed was executed, if action has not been taken despite the mandate of law, the court cannot gloss over it and this is a case in which the administration deserves to be reprimanded for non-performance of its statutory duty. It is unfortunate that administrative anaemia has become the order of the day and the person who is a party to the malady is none other than the District Registrar of Bangalore himself. ( 9 ) IN the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought in this writ petition. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ( 10 ) THE writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of sub-sec. (1) of S. 66 of Indian Registration Act by forwarding a memorandum of the documents in question dated 31-5-1980 (annexure-A) to the Sub Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bangalore witin 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. I also direct the respondent to pay costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner for the inordinate and unjustified delay in the performance of statutory duty. I also direct the respondent to pay costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner for the inordinate and unjustified delay in the performance of statutory duty. It has become necessary for me to impose costs in this writ petition to record dis-approval of the Court of the neglect of duty on the part of the respondent. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of. Writ petition allowed with costs. --- *** --- .