L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE Convention of Baptist churches of Northern Circars (CBCNC), kakinada, held about Ac. 30. 00 of land in kakinada Town. The land is covered by an educational Institution, Father s Bungalow and Church. The petitioners contend that the CBCNC executed as many as 42 sale deeds alienating the land, which was covered by the Father s Bungalow. ( 2 ) WHEN the documents were presented for registration, the second respondent herein had demanded stamp duty and registration charge, over and above that was paid on the respective documents. Out of 42 purchasers, 15 have complied with such a demand and their respective sale deeds were released after registration. The documents relating to the petitioners herein, 13 in number, and others remained unregistered. The petitioners came forward to deposit the stamp duty and registration charges as demanded, for release of the sale deeds. However, the second respondent refused to accede to the request, on the ground that he has been instructed and informed by the first respondent, the Revenue divisional Officer not to release any sale deeds relating to the land in question. The petitioners challenge the said action and seek a direction to the second respondent, to release the documents duly registering them in accordance with the provisions of the registration Act, 1908. ( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit the respondents state that the land in question is the property of an Institution by name mc. Laurin High School, which was established by CBCNC. According to the respondents, the school was admitted to grant-in-Aidi and since it committed certain irregularities, proceedings were initiated under the A. P. Education Act for takeover of the management and thereafter the school itself, together with its properties. The respondents contend that the properties are vested in the Government in view of the various proceedings that were initiated under the A. P. Education Act and as such the question of releasing the documents to the petitioners does not arise. ( 4 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the second respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to refuse to register and release the documents, once the requisite stamp duty is paid. ( 4 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the second respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to refuse to register and release the documents, once the requisite stamp duty is paid. He submits that the second respondent has no power to go into the question of title and as long as the Government has not issued any notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the second respondent is bound to release the documents, of course, after satisfying himself as to the identity of the persons who have executed the documents. It is also his case that the action of the second respondent amounts to discrimination, inasmuch as 15 out of 42 documents were already released. He places reliance upon the judgments of this Court rendered by learned Single Judges and division Bench. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the land said to have been purchased by the petitioners is part of the property held by the Mc. Laurin High School. According to him, the effect of proceedings initiated and issued under various provisions of the A. P. Education Act is that the properties are vested in the Government and no transfer can take place contrary to the will of the persons or authority in whom the property is vested, at present. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the CBCNC executed 42 sale deeds in favour of the petitioners and others in the year 1994. The property was held by CBCNC. While the petitioners contend that the land purchased by them was part of Father s Bungalow, the respondents contend that it is the part of the school compound. Hence it is relevant to briefly refer to the various proceedings that have taken place vis-a-vis the school. ( 7 ) THE school was admitted to Grantin-Aid. Certain disputes started and complaints came to be made in the year 1968 itself. The management was required by the Government to pay the salaries to the staff directly. A show-cause notice under section 24 (3) of the A. P. Education Act came to be issued, on noticing certain irregularities in the management. The district Educational Officer was appointed as Special Officer through proceedings dated 5. 8. 1985 by the Director of Education. Later on, he was replaced by the Joint Collector through proceedings dated 23. 9. 1985. A show-cause notice under section 24 (3) of the A. P. Education Act came to be issued, on noticing certain irregularities in the management. The district Educational Officer was appointed as Special Officer through proceedings dated 5. 8. 1985 by the Director of Education. Later on, he was replaced by the Joint Collector through proceedings dated 23. 9. 1985. ( 8 ) A show-cause notice dated 30. 10. 1985 was issued under Section 60 (1) of the A. P. Education Act as to why the management of the institution should not be taken over. In G. O. Ms. No. 523, dated 19. 12. 1988 the Government had decided to acquire the institution together with the properties mentioned in the schedule. The physical possession of the properties is said to have been taken over on 23. 1. 1989. The special Officer was permitted to acquire the properties and take further proceedings by issuing G. O. Ms. No. 319, dated 6. 8. 1983. The same was challenged in W. P. 2815 of 1989. The writ petition was allowed on 9. 3. 1990 setting aside the G. O. and directing the Government to give opportunity to the petitioners therein to put forward their respective contentions. ( 9 ) G. O. Ms. No. 234, dated 24. 6. 1995 was issued by the Government to acquire the properties and to take further action. W. P. 16077 of 1995 was filed thereagainst. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Education Department for fresh consideration. After this remand, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 3, dated 10. 1. 2000 rejecting the contentions raised on behalf of the management and deciding to acquire the properties. The first respondent herein was directed to take further steps as required under Sections 67, 68 and 69 of the a. P. Education Act read with G. O. Ms. No. 319, dated 6. 8. 1983. W. P. 191 of 2002 was filed against G. O. Ms. No. 3, dated 10. 1. 2000, by the Management. Interim orders were granted suspending the G. O. That writ petition is pending. ( 10 ) IN this writ petition we are not concerned with the causes of acquisition of the land under the A. P. Education Act or the consequences thereof. That is a matter to be dealt with under W. P. No. 191 of 2002, which is pending. Interim orders were granted suspending the G. O. That writ petition is pending. ( 10 ) IN this writ petition we are not concerned with the causes of acquisition of the land under the A. P. Education Act or the consequences thereof. That is a matter to be dealt with under W. P. No. 191 of 2002, which is pending. The only question that needs to be dealt with in this writ petition is as to whether it was competent for the second respondent to refuse to release the documents presented for registration, even assuming that the land in question is part of the school property. ( 11 ) UNDER the provisions of the Indian stamp Act and the Registration Act, the registering authorities are conferred with the power to effect the registration of the documents, presented to them on being satisfied as to the payment of requisite stamp duty and registration charges; and on being satisfied about the identity of the executant. Section 35 of the Registration Act prescribes the manner in which the registering authority has to satisfy itself as to the identity of the executant. So far as the competence of the executant to transfer a property is concerned, the Registration Act and the indian Stamp Act are almost silent; for the reason that registration of a document by itself does not improve upon the nature or extent of the title that is vested with the transferor. The effect of registering a document could be that whatever title the transferor possesses, is conveyed to the transferee. In view of the age-old principle of law that nobody can convey a better title than what he possesses, the registering authorities are assigned no role whatsoever, as to the ascertainment of title with the transferor; The registration of a document, if at all anything, would put the transferee in the place of the transferor vis-a-vis the subject-matter of the document. ( 12 ) OBVIOUSLY, with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings or unnecessary litigation, the Government is vested with the power under Section 22-A of the Registration act to notify to the registering authority, the details of the properties in respect of which, registrations shall not be effected. Here also it needs to be noticed that the issuance of the notification under section 22-A of the Registration Act, would hardly alter the nature of the title over the property. Here also it needs to be noticed that the issuance of the notification under section 22-A of the Registration Act, would hardly alter the nature of the title over the property. At the most, the person holding or claiming the title is handicapped from conveying the same to others, as long as the notification subsists. ( 13 ) EXCEPT in a case where a property is notified under Section 22-A of the registration Act, the registering authority has no power to refuse to register a document presented to him as regards the property within his jurisdiction, if the document is otherwise in the order, and if there is no dispute as to the identity of the executant. In mandadi Nirmala v. District Collector, hyderabad, 2000 (2) ALD 725 = 2000 (2) alt 64 (DB), a Division Bench of this court was dealing with a case where the registering authority refused to register the document on the ground that the proceedings relating to the subject-matter of the document were pending in the Land Grabbing Court. Speaking for the Bench, Sri Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi (as he then was), observed as under:"we therefore, direct the Sub-Registrar to consider the question of registration of the documents in the light of the Registration act after referring to the objection raised by the Mandal Revenue Officer and to pass appropriate orders according to law. In case it is decided to register and release the documents, appropriate endorsements shall be made on the documents referring to the factum of objection by the Revenue department and the overruling of objection. It is made clear that the alienations in question will be subject to the result of land Grab Case said to be pending in the special Court. " ( 14 ) THEREFORE, the dispute as to title or pendency of proceedings does not confer any right on the registering authority to withhold the documents. The satisfaction for the purpose of registration has to be wholly in terms of the provisions of the relevant Acts and not beyond that. It has come on record that out of 42 documents presented for registration, 15 were already released. The satisfaction for the purpose of registration has to be wholly in terms of the provisions of the relevant Acts and not beyond that. It has come on record that out of 42 documents presented for registration, 15 were already released. The non release of the documents relating to the petitioners till recently was not on account of any legal impediment as to title, but on account of the reluctance of the petitioners to pay the stamp duty and registration charges, demanded by the 2nd respondent. When the petitioners have come forward to pay the deficit stamp duty and registration charges, the 2nd respondent cannot refuse to release the documents, on the basis of a subsequent development. It is not as if the legal character of the land in question gets altered with the release of these documents. In the event of the land being identified as part of the school property and being vested in the Government, the petitioners cannot canvas a superior title than what they derived from the transferors. Whatever happens to the transferors as regards balance of the land or to the transferees under the 15 documents released by the 2nd respondent way bock in the year 1994, would happen to the petitioners. Viewed from any angle, the action of the 2nd respondent cannot be countenanced. ( 15 ) HENCE, the writ petition is allowed, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and process the documents presented by the petitioners, which were executed by their vendors on 23-4-1994, and release them if the same are found to be otherwise in order and if the proper stamp duty and registration fee is paid. It shall be open to the 2nd respondent to require an endorsement to be made in the documents to the effect that the transfer under the documents shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Government under G. O. Ms. No. 3 dated 10-1-2000. The transfer in favour of the petitioners under the said documents shall be subject to the result of WP No. 191 of 2002 filed against G. O. Ms. No. 3 dated 10-1-2000. No costs.