ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The Petitioners have preferred the instant Writs of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court calling for the records relating to the impugned orders made by the fourth respondent by his proceedings dated 25.3.2009 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 6th respondent to take on file and register the documents in respect of the said lands. 3. When the matters are taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners drew the attention of this Court through their typed set of papers to emphasise the fact that the order under challenge has been elaborately considered by this Court vide its order dated 01.12.2014 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.19402 & 19403 of 2014 and in W.P.(MD).No.20874 of 2014 dated 19.12.2014 and eventually, those Writ Petitions were allowed by the learned Judge of this Court by taking into the decision made in T. Sundar vs. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli and another, 2010 (2) CWC 159 whereby and whereunder in paragraphs 11 and 12, it is observed and laid down as follows: “11. Next, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that a communication has been sent by the second respondent to the first respondent not to entertain any sale deed in respect of the said survey numbers. The Honourable Division Bench of this Court had decided the scope of such direction in the nature of prohibition and whether the same could be issued by either the Government or any other body to the said registration of assurance directing him not to entertain any document. In Thiyavalli Panchayathai Serntha Nochikkadu Grama Vivasayigal Pathukappu Matrum Makkal Pothunala Sangam, represented by its Secretary, Nochikkadu vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others, 2008 (3) LW 766 , the Honourable Division Bench of this Court held that there is no provision under the statute where the State Government or the respondents therein can validly issue any directions refusing to register any document for which registration is permissible under the provisions of the Act. 12. 12. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court, the direction issued by the Second Respondent to the First Respondent is also to be held as unsustainable. In fact, the learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the release of the document is always subject to the right which has already accrued in favour of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by resisting to release the document by the Board is not justifiable.” It is to be noted that in the aforesaid decision T. Sundar vs. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli and another, 2010 (2) CWC 159 , in regard to the direction given by the respondent therein to the Registration Authority not to register certain documents pertaining to certain survey numbers and hold that there is no provision under the statute which enables the respondent to give direction to that effect and further the document for which registration is permissible under the Registration Act has to be registered. 4. Following those orders, the learned Single Judge has also allowed a subsequent Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.19587 of 2014, dated 03.12.2014. In paragraph 11 of the said order, it is observed as follows:- “11. Apart from the above, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks in aid of the order dated 28.10.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.17325 of 2014, in M. Malathy vs. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration and others, wherein this Court had allowed the Writ Petition but passed orders in setting aside the order of the fourth respondent dated 25.03.2009 on the ground that the said order bristles with infirmities, material irregularities and patent illegalities in the eye of law. Furthermore, this Court has also observed that as and when the petitioner therein presents the documents for registration if the same is in accordance with law then the sixth respondent shall register the same in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order dated 28.10.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.17325 of 2014 applies to the facts and circumstances of the case with full vigour and vitality. Following the order, dated 28.10.2014, passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.17325 of 2014, this Court allows the Writ Petition by setting aside the order of the fourth respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka./A1/1357/09, dated 25.03.2009. Following the order, dated 28.10.2014, passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.17325 of 2014, this Court allows the Writ Petition by setting aside the order of the fourth respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka./A1/1357/09, dated 25.03.2009. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.” 5. In view of the above, I have no hesitation to quash the orders impugned in these Writ Petitions also. Accordingly, the impugned order of the fourth respondent dated 25.03.2009 stand quashed and these Writ Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the sixth respondent is directed to take on file and register the documents in question in respect of the lands of the petitioners in accordance with law. The connected Writ Petitions are closed. No costs.