Judgment : The petitioners state that their ancestors owned an extent of Ac.7.08 guntas of land in Survey No.383/2 of Torrur Village, Hayatnagr Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and that the said land was the subject matter of partition under Document No.2736 of 1976. It is also stated that Ac.3.00 of the said land was gifted to the 2nd petitioner through document No.769/91 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Vanasthalipuram, 2nd respondent herein. The first petitioner is said to be the owner of Ac.2.06 guntas of land. The petitioners intended to sell a part of the land referred to above. They claim to have approached the 2nd respondent herein with a request to furnish the particulars of market value, stamp duty, registration fee etc. Their grievance is that the 2nd respondent is refusing to furnish the particulars on the ground that the land in Survey No.383/2 was included in the list of Government properties and the 2nd respondent is enforcing the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioners submit that at no pint of time, the land was held by the Government. It is also their case that not only the names of their ancestors were shown in the Khasra pahani for year 1954-55, but also they were issued pattadar pass books and title deeds recently by the concerned revenue authorities. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit. According to him, the land in Survey No.383 is Ac.259.10 guntas and the sub-division of the said land was done contrary to the prescribed procedure. It is further stated that the entries in the revenue records were not properly made and that the land continues to be held by the Government. Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Section 22-A of the Act was introduced recently with a view to prohibit the registration of documents executed in respect of the properties owned by the Government. Initially, the purport of the Section was that any document which affects the public interest cannot be registered and the Government was clothed with the power to issue a G.O. showing the list of properties held by them. The execution of any document in respect of the lands mentioned in the G.O. was to be treated per se as opposed to public policy. The execution of any document in respect of the lands mentioned in the G.O. was to be treated per se as opposed to public policy. That provision was set aside by this Court, following the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata ( 2005 (7) Scale 164 ). In the place of the provision, which was struck down by this Court, the State Legislature enacted Section 22-A of the Act with a different context. It prohibits registration of documents pertaining to the properties. which fall in five categories i.e., Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-Section (1). One such item is the properties owned by the State or Central Government. The registering authority would naturally be guided by the particulars furnished by the revenue authorities as regards the identification of the properties owned by the Government. For all practical purposes, the Revenue Department and the authorities thereof felt that their power to include an item of land in the list to be supplied to the Sub-Register is unguided. Indiscriminately, the lands held in as patta or otherwise were included giving raise to spate of litigation. Though the objective underlying Section 22-A of the Act is laudable, in quite large number of instances, citizens are put to hardship and made to go around the Courts in the matter of effecting transfer of their properties. In the instant case, the petitioners have stated that the names of their ancestors were mentioned in the pahanies of the year 1951 and the same entries were repeated in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55. It is also pleaded by them that their names be entered in the registers, as and how the succession or partition has taken place and ultimately, they were issued pattadar pass books and title deeds by the revenue authorities themselves. In his counter affidavit, the 1st respondent did not dispute any of these facts. His reply is that the land in Survey No.383 is a compact pack of Ac.259.10 guntas and there cannot be any sub-division. He does not dispute the existence of subdivision for the past more than half a century. Certain provisions are also cited. It is not even pleaded by the 1st respondent that any steps were initiated for correction of the records. He does not dispute the existence of subdivision for the past more than half a century. Certain provisions are also cited. It is not even pleaded by the 1st respondent that any steps were initiated for correction of the records. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, a peculiar situation is emerging, wherein the revenue authorities dispute the records maintained by themselves in their quest to make as much property available to the Government as possible, so that it can be sold or made over to influential agencies or individuals. It is the indiscriminate allotment of such lands that has landed not only the Ministers but also the senior officials in the Government in trouble. The other part of the episode is that the absolute owners of the properties are being treated as strangers. If the revenue authorities do not respect the entries made by them as well as the pattadar pass books and title deeds, issued by them, they cannot expect the other organs of the State to have any respect for them. A situation is emerging as though the sweet will of an individual would prevail over the entries made under Statues. This Court takes serious exception to the manner in which the 1st respondent dealt with the matter. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) payable by the 1st respondent to the School for Visually Disables Persons, Malakapt within two months from today. He shall also file a memo of compliance with the Registry. The Registry is directed to verify the matter. In case, the amount is not deposited, the Registry shall list the writ petition ‘for being mentioned’ before this Court. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this writ petition also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.