V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) INTRODUCTION the petitioner is an association statedly formed for the welfare of its members who purchased house sites/plots in a lay out known as East City. The third respondent herein in response to the representation of the petitioner dated 7. 3. 2000 informed that as per the instructions of the first respondent the plots comprised in S. Nos. 1 to 27, 29 to 41, 43 to 68, 70 to 74 and 79 to 87 of rangapur Village, Bibinagar Mandal, nalgonda District are Bhoodan Lands and therefore registration of documents in the above survey numbers is stopped from 15. 3. 1997. The petitioner was also informed that registration of documents in Rangapur bhoodan lands shall not be entertained and the restrictions imposed by the District collector cannot be withdrawn. This order is assailed by the petitioner as without power or authority and unconstitutional. Secondly, a direction to the respondents to accept the documents from the members of the petitioner-society seeking conveyance and right of title over the last purchase by them ignoring the restrictions imposed in 1997. ( 2 ) BHOODAN lands of Rangapur Village have been subject-matter of the litigation before the authorities under A. P. (Tetangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1950 (Tenancy Act, for brevity) as well as proceedings before this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India and supreme Court as well. When the matter was heard these lands still remain the subject-matter of suit pending before the civil Court where A. P. Bhoodan Yagna board, the fourth respondent herein filed a suit for declaration of title. In view of this, the facts need to be noticed in brief. Facts in Brief: ( 3 ) THE lands in question, according to the petitioner are known as Ijara lands belonging to one late Chittur Giriji, which were allegedly donated by inamdar to A. P. Bhoodan Yagna Board, the fourth respondent herein (hereinafter called Bhoodan Board) on 20. 2. 1955. At the relevant time it is alleged there were 18 protected tenants in possession of the lands who had certificates under the Tenancy Act. The protected tenants were given Form 111 patta certificates under Rule 15 of Sri Acharya Vinobha bhave Sarvodaya Bhoodan Yagna, hyderabad, Land Revenue Special Rules, 1951. The Bhoodan Board at one point of time appears to have decided to sell acs. The protected tenants were given Form 111 patta certificates under Rule 15 of Sri Acharya Vinobha bhave Sarvodaya Bhoodan Yagna, hyderabad, Land Revenue Special Rules, 1951. The Bhoodan Board at one point of time appears to have decided to sell acs. 300 of land for rehabilitation of retired defence personnel. When the Board resiled and conveyed only Acs. 42. 00 gunrock Enclave Co-operative Housing society Limited filed a suit being OS No. 232 of 1989 before the civil Court which was later withdrawn- At that stage, the Mandal revenue Officer, Bibinagar issued a notice to the said Society and M/s. Narne Estates who had also entered into such agreement. The notices were questioned in WP No. 9211 of 1990 before this Court which was disposed of on 3. 12. 1992 directing the matter to be forwarded to Bhoodan Board to be enquired into after giving notice to all concerned. The Board appointed one of the members to enquire into the matter who submitted a report. Based on the report of the member, a show-cause notice dated 18. 10. 1993 was issued to the occupants to show-cause as to why pattas should not be cancelled. The Mandal Revenue Officer also issued a show-cause notice. The mandal Revenue Officer passed orders on 23. 5. 1994 cancelling pattas which was challenged in WP No. 22745 and WP no. 28335 of 1994. ( 4 ) THERE is yet another batch of writ petitions being WP No. 6468 of 1997 filed before this Court challenging the order/ proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 8. 3. 1997. By proceedings dated 8. 3. 1997 the Mandal Revenue Officer referred to directions issued by the Collector to the effect that the Mandal Revenue officer may take action as per the judgment of the High Court in WP No. 8280 of 1995 dated 29. 1. 1997 and recorded that he has taken possession of Bhoodan lands admeasuring Ac. 507. 341/2 guntas in various survey numbers. ( 5 ) A learned single Judge of this court by judgment dated 29-7-1997 in WP no. 6468 of 1997 and batch held that the mandal Revenue Officer had no power to issue proceedings dated 8. 3. 1. 1997 and recorded that he has taken possession of Bhoodan lands admeasuring Ac. 507. 341/2 guntas in various survey numbers. ( 5 ) A learned single Judge of this court by judgment dated 29-7-1997 in WP no. 6468 of 1997 and batch held that the mandal Revenue Officer had no power to issue proceedings dated 8. 3. 1997, that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and provisions of A. P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and that the mandal Revenue Officer would not have taken physical possession of land admeasuring ac. 500 and buildings which were in possession of various writ petitioner and, therefore, it was only paper possession and no physical delivery was taken. The learned Judge also observed that the High couit has not decided the dispute as to title between the parties and it was open to bhoodan Board or any aggrieved party for any adjudication of dispute and title. But the learned single Judge also appointed bhoodan Board as receiver pending further proceedings in various Courts. Challenging this direction, the defence personnel filed writ appeal which was dismissed by Division bench. ( 6 ) IN the meanwhile, M/s. Name estates Limited sold certain house sites/plots also to various personnel including members of petitioner-association. The District collector, Nalgonda, the first respondent herein, issued a direction vide his letter dated 11. 3. 1997 to the second respondent requesting to issue suitable instructions to sub-Registrar for not entertaining any registrations in respect of lands comprised in various survey numbers of Rangapur village. When the petitioner addressed a letter to the first respondent requesting certain information regarding decision not to register sale deeds, the first respondent by letter No. 142/2000 dated 10. 3. 2000 informed that as per the directions issued by the district Collector on 11. 3. 1997 and 1. 2. 2000 registration of documents in various survey numbers of Rangapur Village be stopped. The Sub-Registrar also enclosed two letters of District Collector dated 11. 3. 1997 as well as 1. 2. 2000. The petitioner society assailed the letter dated 10. 3. 2000 issued by Sub- registrar, Bhongiri. 3. 1997 and 1. 2. 2000 registration of documents in various survey numbers of Rangapur Village be stopped. The Sub-Registrar also enclosed two letters of District Collector dated 11. 3. 1997 as well as 1. 2. 2000. The petitioner society assailed the letter dated 10. 3. 2000 issued by Sub- registrar, Bhongiri. The petitioner prayed for a declaration that the action of Sub- registrar in issuing the impugned letter is without power and authority and for a consequential direction to accept the documents from all members of petitioner- association seeking advancement of right and title for the amounts who have purchased from the owners in various survey lands of rangapur Village. ( 7 ) THIS Court ordered notice before admission on 27. 4. 2000. When the matter was listed before this Court it was heard on various days elaborately. As all the parties filed their pleadings, the matter is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri M. R. K. Choudary, teamed government Pleader Sri P. Rajagopala Rao for respondents 1 to 3, and learned Standing counsel for A. P. Bhoodan Board, fourth respondent, Sri C. Ravindranath. ( 8 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that the lands in question were donated by the owner, Bhoodan Yagna Samiti in 1952, that M/s. Name Ranga Rao and Gunrock enclave Co-operative Housing Society/east city Defence Personnel Association entered into agreement with Bhoodan Board agreeing to provide Acs. 200. 00 of land to Bhoodan board in return to equal extent of land to be allotted by Bhoodan Board to Sri Name ranga Rao at Rangapur Village. Accordingly, Name Ranga Rao handed over ac. 42. 32 guntas of land in Edira Village of shad Nagar Taluk in Mahboobnagar to bhoodan Board and in return the Board allotted equal extent of land at Rangapur village vide registered document No. 1479 of 1985 in the office of Sub-Registrar, shad Nagar. Later the transferee requested to give some other land on the ground that the land in Edira Village is not suitable for him. Accordingly, earlier exchange deed was cancelled and by document No. 1077/ 88 dated 19. 3. 1989 an extent of Ac. 42. 32 guntas at Rangapur Village itself was given to him. Later the transferee requested to give some other land on the ground that the land in Edira Village is not suitable for him. Accordingly, earlier exchange deed was cancelled and by document No. 1077/ 88 dated 19. 3. 1989 an extent of Ac. 42. 32 guntas at Rangapur Village itself was given to him. Taking advantage of this Name ranga Rao went on purchasing other bhoodan lands from persons under General power of Attorney which is illegal and contrary to law. The first respondent also states that the petitioner has suppressed various facts. ( 9 ) THE Bhoodan land in an extent of Ac. 540. 15 guntas which was purchased was converted into non-agricultural land by laying roads and constructing buildings without any permission under the provisions of A. P. Non-Agricultural Lands Assessment act (NALA), 1963 and contrary to the provisions of Section 61 of A. P. Land revenue (Telangana Area) Act, 1317 Fasli (for short, Revenue Act ). The Mandal revenue Officer initiated action by issuing show-cause notice. The other averments need not be adverted to here as they deal with history of litigation. Suffice it to say that respondents relied on observations made by the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 27. 7. 1999 in civil appeal filed by petitioner against WA No. 1251 of 1997 and stated that though the Supreme Court ordered status quo, the petitioner violated the same by changing the nature of the land and raised structures and therefore contempt case was filed before this Court. The first respondent also relied on various provisions of A. P. Bhoodan and Gramdan act, 1965 (Bhoodan Act) and Rule 9 of a. P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Rules, 1965 (Bhoodan Rules) to contend that the transfer of Bhoodan land either by sale, or gift or mortgage is prohibited and void. Further, reliance is also placed on the Notification issued by the Government of Andhra pradesh by G. O. Ms. No. 786, dated 9. 11. 1999 prohibiting registration of document relating to transfer of immovable property which is prohibited by law under the State or Central enactment. ( 10 ) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 filed a counter-affidavit through the third respondent and they relied on Rule 9 of Bhoodan rules and Section 22-A of the Registration act, 1908 to justify the impugned action of respondents not to register any lands in rangapur Village. ( 10 ) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 filed a counter-affidavit through the third respondent and they relied on Rule 9 of Bhoodan rules and Section 22-A of the Registration act, 1908 to justify the impugned action of respondents not to register any lands in rangapur Village. ( 11 ) BHOODAN Board also filed a separate counter-affidavit. Right and title of the petitioner is denied. It also states that even according to the admission made by m/s. Name Estates (Pvt.) Ltd in various court proceedings that the lands are bhoodan lands and therefore any transfer is prohibited. The fourth respondent also raised objection as to maintainability of the writ petition. Rival Submissions : ( 12 ) SRI M. R. K. Choudary has placed reliance on various orders of authorities as well as Courts in support of the contention that the possession of the land is still with the petitioner and that inspite of specific orders being granted by the learned single judge in WP No. 6497 of 1997 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, respondents have no power or jurisdiction to reject registration. He would also submit that as directed by this Court as well as Supreme court, the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction is yet to declare title and ownership of Bhoodan Board and pending such Court adjudication registration in favour of members of petitioner-association cannot be stopped. He relied on Kailash v. Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Indore, AIR 1985 MP 12 (DB), D. Ratnasundari Devi v. Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling, 1993 (2) ALT 428 (DB), and C. Venkaiah v. Government of A. P. , 1994 (2) ALT 440. ( 13 ) LEARNED Government Pleader, sri P. Rajagopala Rao and learned Standing counsel for Bhoodan Board Sri Ch. Ravindranath have vehemently opposed the relief. They mainly relied on the observations made by the Supreme Court in support of their contentions. They also relied on various provisions of various statutes to contend that any transfer or alienation of Bhoodan land would violate the law and therefore no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to register documents ignoring the law. The learned Government Pleader relied on d. Ratnasundari Devis case (supra), and s. Sushee/a Bai v. M/s. C. T. Parikh, 1975 (2) An. WR 141. Points for consideration ( 14 ) THE validity of the impugned letter dated 10. 3. The learned Government Pleader relied on d. Ratnasundari Devis case (supra), and s. Sushee/a Bai v. M/s. C. T. Parikh, 1975 (2) An. WR 141. Points for consideration ( 14 ) THE validity of the impugned letter dated 10. 3. 2000 issued by the third respondent purporting to act on the directions of the first respondent informing that no registrations can be entertained is the core question that falls for consideration. The validity of the impugned letter and the nature of directions to be issued if the petitioner s contention is accepted would depend on another question in relation to validity of any transaction alienating or transferring Bhoodan land. Therefore, it is necessary to examine albeit in brief the legality and validity of the action of respondents in not entertaining registrations under the Registration Act, with reference to operation of other statutes. Registration Act ( 15 ) THE Sub-Registrar is statutory authority recognised as such who is appointed under Section 6 of the Registration Act. Part XI of the Registration Act deals with duties and powers of registering officers. When a document is presented for registration to the Registering Officer, say a sub-Registrar, he shall have to proceed in accordance with Sections 52 to 55 duly following directions and instructions issued by the Inspector-General of Registration of the State. After registering document he has to take necessary action in accordance with Sections 58 to 61 of the Act. When the Sub-Registrar refuses to register documents he shall have to make an order of refusal and record reasons for the same. He is also under obligation to give the person a copy of the reasons so recorded on an application being made without collecting any payment. When once registration is refused, the Sub-Registrar cannot accept any document for registration unless and until under the provisions of sections 72 to 75, the higher authorities like the District Registrar directs the Sub- registrar to register the documents. Be it also noted that against the order of the Sub- registrar refusing to register a document, an appeal lies under Section 72 of the registration Act to the Registrar to whom the Sub-Registrar is subordinate. Be it also noted that against the order of the Sub- registrar refusing to register a document, an appeal lies under Section 72 of the registration Act to the Registrar to whom the Sub-Registrar is subordinate. Be it also noted that when the registering officer is the Registrar himself, who is in-charge of the District passes an order under section 72 of the Registration Act refusing to order to register the document, any person aggrieved by the same is given right to institute a suit within 30 days after making an order of refusal, within local limits where the office in which the document is sought to be registered is situated, and obtain decree from the civil Court directing the document to be registered. A conspectus of various provisions referred to herein and other provisions of the registration Act would show that a person whose document is refused to be registered by the Sub-Registrar is provided with adequate remedies under the said act. ( 16 ) SECTION 22-A of the Registration act is also, required to be noticed. Reliance is also placed on this provision by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue as well as learned Standing Counsel for bhoodan Board. Section 22-A of the Act was inserted by A. P. Amendment Act No. 4 of 1999 with effect from 1. 4. 1999. The said provision reads as under: 22-A. Documents Registration of which is opposed to Public Policy : (1) The State government may, by notifieation in the official Gazette, declare that the registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to public policy. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer snail refuse to register any document to which a notification issued under sub-section (1) is applicable. ( 17 ) THE power of the State government under Section 22-A of the Act to declare by Notification that the registration of document or class of documents is opposed to public policy is an absolute power. Further, by reason of sub-section (2) of Section 22-A overriding effect is given lo the Notification issued under Section 22- a (1) of the Act and notwithstanding various provisions like Sections 51 to 77 of the registration Act, the Registrar shall have to refuse to register any document to which a Notification issued under Section 22-A (1) of the Act is applicable. The plain language does not admit any other interpretation. The question, therefore, is whether there is any Notification enabling the third respondent to refuse registration or enabling the district Collector to issue such directions lo refuse registration and whether any such notification under Section 22-A (1) of the act has any bearing on the registration of the land in question. ( 18 ) IN exercise of power under section 22-A of the Registration Act, the government issued Rules known as A. P. Registration (Prohibition of Registration of certain Documents Opposed to Public policy) Rules, 1999 vide G. O. Ms. No. 786, revenue (Registration-1) 9. 11. 1999. Rule 2 provides that the registration of certain documents mentioned therein shall be considered opposed to public policy and inter alia mentions that documents relating to transfer of immovable property, the alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the Stale or the central Governments. Rule 3 requires the district Collector lo send proposals to the government for issuing Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 22-A of the registration Act and Rule 4 provides that the State Government may, either suo motu or on receipt of proposals from the District collector under Rule 3, notify from time to time the immovable property in respect of which registrations are prohibited. It is not denied before me that as on today no notification under Section 22-A read with rule 4 of these Rules has been issued by the Government. The fact, however, remains that as a policy the Government declared that the registration of the documents in relation to any immovable property whose transfer is prohibited will be considered as opposed to public policy. If there is any such State or Central Government Act prohibiting the registration of lands donated to Bhoodan Board the same would squarely falls within the policy option with statutory notice mentioned here in above. Therefore, we may refer lo the provisions of Bhoodan Act and Bhoodan Rules. A. P. Bhoodan and Gram Dhan Act, 1965 and A. P. Bhoodan and Gramdan rules, 1965 ( 19 ) THE Bhoodan Act facilitates donation of lands by Bhoodan Yagna and gramdan. It also deals with disposal of such donated lands. Be it noted that though the act came into force with effect from 10. 5. A. P. Bhoodan and Gram Dhan Act, 1965 and A. P. Bhoodan and Gramdan rules, 1965 ( 19 ) THE Bhoodan Act facilitates donation of lands by Bhoodan Yagna and gramdan. It also deals with disposal of such donated lands. Be it noted that though the act came into force with effect from 10. 5. 1965 it also covers the lands donated to Bhoodan Yagna Samiti which was started by Acharya Vinobha Bhave in 1950. Section 12 deals with donation of lands by any owner by filing declaration in the prescribed form. Section 15 provides that bhoodan Yagna Board constituted under section 3 shall prepare a draft list of all the lands which were donated and executed prior to commencement of the Act and publish a draft list in A. P. Gazette calling for objections from persons interested. After expiry of the term, the Board is required to consider objections, hold enquiry and finalise draft list with or without modifications. The final list so prepared shall be published under Section 15 (4) of the Act in A. P. Gazette and on such publication, the right, title and interest of the donor shall stand transferred and vests in the Board. Here, we may notice that the land donated to Bhoodan Board which vests in them may be granted to landless poor who is able and willing to cultivate the land. Under Section 15 (4) (b) the land granted to any person by Bhoodan Board prior to commencement of the Act subject to any decision in any suit under Section 29 shall be deemed to have been granted under section 14 of the Act. Section 29 requires any person whose interests are affected by reason of the donation for the purpose of bhoodan Yagna or Gramdan to institute a suit in a civil Court within three months from the date of publication of list under section 15 (4) of the Act if the land was donated prior to commencement of Bhoodan act and within three months from the date of publication of the order of the Tahsildar under Section 13 if it is a donation after coming into force of the Act. ( 20 ) IT may be mentioned that section 34 of the Bhoodan Act empowers the State Government to make Rules for carrying out purposes of the Act. In accordance with Section 34 of the Act vide g. O. Ms. ( 20 ) IT may be mentioned that section 34 of the Bhoodan Act empowers the State Government to make Rules for carrying out purposes of the Act. In accordance with Section 34 of the Act vide g. O. Ms. No. 1842, dated 15. 11. 1965, a. P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Rules, 1965 have been promulgated. Rule 9 lays down conditions under which the land can be granted to landless poor persons under section 14. Rule 9 (i) is categorical and it declares that the land assigned shall be heritable, but not alienable though the grantee can mortgage the land to Government or to a Co-operative Society for obtaining loans for the development of land which is to be brought under cultivation within three years. By reason of the various provisions of the Bhoodan Act and the bhoodan Rules it is plain that the lands donated to Bhoodan Board prior to or after commencement of the Act cannot be conveyed or transferred by the assignee or grantee. ( 21 ) IN this case, it is alleged that M/s. Name Estates Private Limited (Name ranga Rao) though was given an extent of ac. 42. 00 pursuant to exchange deed in rangapur Village, he went on purchasing the land from the alleged protected tenants by obtaining General Power of Attorney. Whether the members of petitioner-association purchased house plots from the alleged protected tenants or occupiers or holders of shikemdar certificates or entered into agreement with M/s. Name Estates private Limited, in either view of the matter the sale is prohibited by Rue 9 of Bhoodan rules. In this context, the submission of the learned senior Counsel Sri M. R. K. Choudary is that late Chittur Giriji could not have donated the land in question without express consent of shikemdar holders or alleged protected tenants. The senior counsel also admits that Bhoodan Board itself granted assignment to alleged shikemdars and/or protected tenants. He, however, submits that the same does not change the nature of ownership of the land and does not render the donation of the land by the original pattadar in favour of bhoodan Yagna Samiti valid. These questions cannot be gone into in these proceedings for the reasons below. He, however, submits that the same does not change the nature of ownership of the land and does not render the donation of the land by the original pattadar in favour of bhoodan Yagna Samiti valid. These questions cannot be gone into in these proceedings for the reasons below. A. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue act, 1317 Fasli and A. P. Non-Agricultural lands Assessment Act, 1963 ( 22 ) IT is the specific case of respondents 1 to 3 that the land in question was converted and appropriated for non-agricultural purposes without obtaining permission of the District Collector under section 61 of Telangana Revenue Act. It is also the specific case of respondents 1 to 3 that concerned persons have not obtained prior permission of the District Collector under NALA. Though a reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner, these aspects have not been specifically denied. When the alleged owners or subsequent agreement holders under General Power of Attorney purchasers under Power of Attorney have not obtained written permission from the district Collector for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land under section 61 of the Telangana Revenue act, any mandamus or order which has the effect of compelling respondents to register sales or conveyances in relation to the land comprised in various survey numbers of Rangapur Village would be contrary to the provisions of NALA as well as Telangana Revenue Act. ( 23 ) HAVING regard to the discussion in regard to Registration Act, Bhoodan Act and Bhoodan Rules, it must therefore be held that any registration of conveyance/ sale in favour of members of petitioner- association would go contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act and the notification issued thereunder as well as rule 9 of Bhoodan Rules. As noticed, it is axiomatic that this Court cannot issue any writ of mandamus or order which has effect of ordaining the State Government and its officers to ignore the law or act contrary to the law. Earlier Proceedings before the Court ( 24 ) THE respondents in unison vehemently contend that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 4012 of 1999 no registration can be entertained. Earlier Proceedings before the Court ( 24 ) THE respondents in unison vehemently contend that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 4012 of 1999 no registration can be entertained. They would also contend that the same would violate the status quo order granted by this Court and if the petitioners have any compelling need for getting the sale deed registered they must approach the civil Court by filing necessary applications in the suit which is pending. It is not denied before me that Bhoodan board has filed a suit being OS No. 1 of 2002 on the file of the Court of District Judge, nalgonda and the same is pending. Therefore, they would contend that all matters have to be sorted out in the said suit. As noticed hereinabove, the Mandal revenue Officer passed orders purporting to take possession of the land. The same was impeached in WP No. 6468 of 1997 and Batch. The writ petitions were disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the civil Court for resolving the title dispute. This Court also appointed bhoodan Board as receiver. The judgment was affirmed in WA No. 1251 of 1997 which was subject-matter of Civil Appeal No. 4012 of 1999. A three-Judge Bench of the supreme Court disposed of the appeal holding that when the question of title was left open, there is no justification to appoint bhoodan Board as Receiver. The Apex court, however, gave liberty to the parties to approach the civil Court and obtain interlocutory orders notwithstanding orders of status quo granted by the learned single Judge. The relevant extracts from the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 27. 7. 1999 in Civil Appeal No. 4012 of 1999 read as under : the learned single Judge has also directed status quo to be maintained by the parities. It is obvious that as and when the parties approach the civil Court it will be open to that Court to pass appropriate interlocutory orders which it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case by taking into consideration all facts which may be brought to its notice and without being hindered by the status quo order passed by the learned single Judge. Further, if any other orders are necessary in the pending civil suit, it relation to its subject-matter, the parties thereto can approach that Court also. Further, if any other orders are necessary in the pending civil suit, it relation to its subject-matter, the parties thereto can approach that Court also. In the result, the direction of the learned single Judge in his judgment dated 29. 7. 1997 as affirmed in the writ appeal, insofar as the learned single Judge appointed the Bhoodan board as receiver is set aside. The order in the writ appeal is also set aside to that extent. It is open to the Board or to the other parties to take appropriate proceedings in a civil Court in regard to the title to the property which is subject-matter of the notice and of the writ petition and seek appropriate interim orders. It will then be for the civil Court to pass such interim orders as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and the status quo order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition will not come in the way of the civil Court passing appropriate orders. It is also open to the parties to obtain any further orders in OS No. 238 of 1989 pending before the II Additional Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad, in relation to the land covered by that suit. ( 25 ) IN the considered opinion of this court, the observations and directions of the Supreme Court leave no doubt that whatever orders are to be obtained by either of the parties to the lis, they have to go before the civil Court only. The question whether the District Collector directed the registering authorities including the Sub-Registrar not to accept registration and stop registrations with reference to question of power is essentially a realm of public law. But, having regard to the provisions of Section 77 of the Act which enables the aggrieved person to file a suit against the order of registering authority or appellate authority before the civil Court and obtain decree directing document be registered, no mandamus can be granted in this writ petition. Having regard to the litigation and serious questions of title involved, it must be held that the question that arises is purely a question in private law remedy which falls within the parameters of private law remedy. Having regard to the litigation and serious questions of title involved, it must be held that the question that arises is purely a question in private law remedy which falls within the parameters of private law remedy. As noticed, the Supreme Court also categorically directed the parties to approach the civil Court for all appropriate orders and this Court finds force in the submission made by the learned Government pleader for Revenue as well as learned standing Counsel for Bhoodan Board. Accordingly, it must be held that this Court cannot issue any writ of mandamus or pass any orders or directions which have the effect of compelling respondents 2 and 3 to accept documents for registration in relation to lands of Rangapur Village which were admittedly donated to Bhoodan Board five decades ago. Legality or otherwise of the impugned order ( 26 ) THE question raised by the learned counsel is one of jurisdiction. He submits that the District Collector has no such power or authority to direct the District registrar or Sub-Registrar not to entertain documents for registration in respect of the land in question. He also would submit that the Sub-Registrar could not have validly passed that order- Be it noted that the Sub-Registrar has given sufficient reasons in the impugned order dated 10. 3. 2000 against which an appeal lies under Section 72 of the Act. May be, having regard to the directions issued by the District Collector, the remedy of appeal by itself may not be effective alternative remedy. It does not, however, mean that this Court should ignore the law and issue directions to the respondents to ignore and violate the law. It is well settled that if the effect of sinking down the impugned order amounts to reviving another illegal order triggering any illegal action, the Court could not have issued mandamus. In this context, a reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Gadde venkateswara Rao v. Government of andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828 , wherein Hon ble Sri Justice Koka Subba rao, (as he then was) held that if the effect of quashing an order is restoring an illegal order, the Court should not exercise jurisdiction. It is apt to quote the following:. . . It is apt to quote the following:. . . Both the orders of the Government, namely, the order dated March 7, 1962, and that dated April 18, 1963, were not legally passed: the former, because it was made without giving notice to the Panchayat Samithi and that latter, because the Government had no power under Section 72 of the Act to review an order made under Section 62 of the Act and also because it did not give notice to the representatives of Dharmajigudem village. In those circumstances, was it a case for the High Court to interfere in its discretion and quash the order of the government dated April 18,1963 ? If the high Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order - it would have given the Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court, therefore, in our view, rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power in the circumstances of the case. ( 27 ) IN Maharaja Chintamani Saran nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar, (1999) 8 scc 16 , the Supreme Court again referred to Gadde Venkateswara Rao s case (supra) and held that if as a result of setting aside an order another invalid order ids given effect to, the Court cannot issue any direction or mandamus. A reference may also be made to a decision of Full Bench of five learned Judges of Rajasthan High court in Jagan Singh v. State Transport appellate Tribunal AIR 1980 Raj. 1 (FB) wherein it was observed : assuming for argument s sake that the non-petitioner no. 2, Sagruddin, had no locus standi to file an appeal or revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Regional Transport authority dated May 27, 1978, the fact remains that the said order of the Regional transport Authority is illegal and if we were to allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned order by the State Transport appellate Tribunal, the result would be that the illegal order of the Regional Transport authority would be restored. It may be noted that there has been no failure of justice in the present case and we would be justified in refusing to interfere unless we are satisfied that the justice of the case requires it. It may be noted that there has been no failure of justice in the present case and we would be justified in refusing to interfere unless we are satisfied that the justice of the case requires it. We are of opinion, that having regard to the facts of the case and the law bearing on the subject, we should decline to interfere. ( 28 ) IN this connection, a reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme court in Brij Mohan v. M. P. S. R. T. Corporation, AIR 1987 SC 29 , wherein it was held: the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and in particular Sections 42 and 59 clearly debar all holders of permits including the state Road Transport Corporation from indulging in unauthorised trafficking in permits. Therefore, the agreement entered into by the petitioner, unemployed graduate, with the State Road Transport Corporation to ply his bus is nominee of the Corporation on the route in respect of which the permit was issued in favour of the Corporation for a period of five years, was clearly contrary to the Act and cannot, therefore, be enforced. In the circumstances, the petitioner would not be entitled to the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Corporation to allow him to operate his motor vehicle as a stage carriage under the permit obtained by the Corporation as its nominee. ( 29 ) THE decision in Brij Mohan s case (supra) was followed in LIC of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar, AIR 1994 sc 2148 , and the Supreme Court held that Courts should not issue directions disregardful of law. ( 30 ) FURTHER, a Division Bench of this court in Ratnasundari Devi s Case (supra) categorically held that the Inspector-General of Registration has got powers of general superintendence under Section 69 of the registration Act in exercise of which he is entitled to issue directions to all the registration Officers in the territories under the State Government. That being the case, the defect that has been pointed out in the impugned proceedings is a curable defect and it is always open for the Inspector-General of Registration to issue such orders to the subordinate Registering authority. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the Government is taking necessary steps to issue Notification under section 22-A of the Registration Act. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the Government is taking necessary steps to issue Notification under section 22-A of the Registration Act. In any view of the matter, the relief as prayed cannot be granted by this Court, for, the same would result in compelling respondents 1 to 3 to violate the various statutes and statutory rules jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to meet such situations. Conclusion ( 31 ) THE land comprised in S. Nos. l to 27, 29 to 41, 43 to 68 and 70 to 87 of rangapur Village, Bibinagar Mandal, nalgonda District was donated to Bhoodan yagna Samiti. These lands were admittedly assigned by "way of patta to the occupants of the land who entered into agreements and gave General Power of Attorney to others like Name Ranga Rao and M/s. Name Estates Private Limited. The members of the petitioner-association purchased plots from the occupants who were assigned pattas with active relationship of Name ranga Rao and his Company. Though there is a dispute as to whether there could have been valid donation to the Bhoodan yagna Board (Be it under Section 12 or be it by reason of Section 15 of the Bhoodan act), the fact remains that the suit is pending before a civil Court i. e. , OS No. 1 of 2002 on the file of the Court of District judge, Nalgonda. In addition to this, there cannot be any doubt that any registration of the land in question would violate non-Agricultural Land Assessment Act, a. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act 1317-Fasli, A. P. Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfer Act, 1977 as well as Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 read with the Notification issued in G. O. Ms. No. 786, dated 9. 11. 1999. Therefore, the relief of declaration prayed in this writ petition, if granted, would amount to directing respondents 1 to 3 to ignore various provisions of various laws and also ignoring the judgments of the Supreme Court. This court in exercise of its jurisdiction cannot issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature of mandamus in such a situation. ( 32 ) THE writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs to the fourth respondent herein to be paid by the petitioner. The hearing fee is set at Rs. ( 32 ) THE writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs to the fourth respondent herein to be paid by the petitioner. The hearing fee is set at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only ).