ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed by one Bandi Kanthamma, w/o late B. Somi Reddy, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the action of the second respondent in disposing of the appeal on technical plea of delay without following the directions specified in W.P.No.39047 of 2018 dated 31.10.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set-aside the same by issuing a specific direction to the respondents to receive and register the Document P.No.77/2016 dated 31.12.2015 and release the same to the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that, the petitioner purchased 1/3rd undivided share of property from her vendor one M. Kumara Swamy in Court auction vide E.P.No.6 of 2010 in O.S.No.45 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Judge, Anantapur. The sale deed was executed in favour of this petitioner and the petitioner presented the same for registration before the third respondent as per ‘Anywhere Registration’. The third respondent processed the same vide C.S.No.12035/2015, but did not release the document after registration. 3. As the document was not registered, released when presented for registration by the third respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8438 of 2016 for a specific direction before High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The High Court vide order dated 01.09.2016 issued a direction to the third respondent to register and release the document within a period of four weeks, while observing that, if the third respondents wants to refuse the registration, he has to record reasons as envisaged under Section 71(1) of the Registration Act, 1908. 4. Since the third respondent did not comply with the order in W.P.No.8438 of 2016 dated 01.09.2016, the petitioner was compelled to file C.C.No.2119 of 2016 and it was contested by the third respondent, specifically contending that he has already passed an order on 21.09.2016 vide P.No.77/2015. In the said endorsement, the third respondent mentioned that there was an order of attachment by the Court in O.S.No.4 of 2001, but the third respondent did not serve copy of the order of refusal of registration, as required under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the third respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act before the second respondent/District Registrar on 23.07.2017 raising several questions, and the same was pending. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the third respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act before the second respondent/District Registrar on 23.07.2017 raising several questions, and the same was pending. Thereupon, the petitioner filed W.P.No.39047 of 201 and the High Court vide order dated 31.10.2018 directed the second respondent to consider the appeal within four weeks. Since the second respondent did not comply with the direction in W.P.No.39047 of 2017 dated 31.10.2018, C.C.No.1140 of 2019 was filed. Despite it, the third respondent did not register the document on the ground of attachment. However, the order of the second respondent in deciding appeal on technical ground of limitation is under challenge in this present writ petition, as the question of limitation was not raised at the initial stage when the appeal is entertained and registered, and contended that dismissal of appeal on the ground of limitation is illegal, thereby, the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be declared as illegal and arbitrary; consequently set-aside the same while issuing direction to the third respondent to register the document on representation by this petitioner. 6. The petitioner raised the following specific grounds in the writ petition: (a) Proceedings No.A/798/2018 dated 18.06.2020 is contrary to the directions issued in W.P.No.39047 of 2018. (b) When a direction was issued by this Court in W.P.No.39047 of 2018 on merits, dismissal of the appeal on technical plea of limitation is illegal and in violation of the order in W.P.No.39047 of 2018. (c) The second respondent did not consider dismissal of O.S.No.4 of 2001 where an interim order of attachment was ordered. But, either Respondent Nos. 2 or 3 did not consider the same in proper perspective and that the second respondent ought to have directed the third respondent/ Sub-Registrar to register the document as per Section 75(2) of the Registration Act to dispose of the matter in accordance with law, thereby, the order is illegal and arbitrary and requested to set-aside the same; consequently requested to directed the third respondent to receive and register the Document with P.No.77/2016 dated 31.12.2015. 7. 7. During hearing, Sri K.A. Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, dismissal of appeal on technical ground of limitation is a serious illegality and the respondents are not supposed to raise such plea, as dismissal of appeal purely on technical grounds is erroneous and contrary to the directions issued by the High Court in W.P.No.39047 of 2017 dated 31.10.2018 and requested to set-aside the same and issue a direction as claimed above. 8. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration would contend that, when the appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation, dismissal of appeal is in accordance with law and it is not a technical ground. Besides limitation, the appeal was dismissed on other grounds also. On the other hand, even if no plea of limitation is set up by the respondents, it is the duty of the authority to consider whether the appeal is in time, in view of Section 3 of Limitation Act. Therefore, dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation is in accordance with law and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that needs to be answered by this Court is : “Whether dismissal of an appeal filed under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, on the ground of limitation be sustained. If not, whether a direction as sought by this petitioner be issued declaring the Proceedings No.A/798/2018 dated 18.06.2020 as illegal and arbitrary. Whether a consequential direction be issued to the third respondent to receive and register the Document P.No.77/2016 dated 31.12.2015? POINT : 10. It is an undisputed fact that this petitioner purchased the property in the Court auction and presented the document for registration before the third respondent under the provision ‘Anywhere Registration’, but no action was taken for release of the document by the third respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8436 of 2016 and the learned single Judge vide order dated 01.09.2016 issued the following direction: “Since it is stated that the 3rd respondent received the sale deed for registration, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider and register the sale deed, if the same is otherwise in order as per the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the 3rd respondent wants to refuse the registration, he has to record reasons as envisaged under Section 71(1) of the Registration Act, 1908.” 11. But, it appears from the allegations that, as the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.8438 of 2016 dated 01.09.2016 was not complied with, the petitioner filed C.C.No.2119 of 2016, wherein, the learned single Judge vide order dated 30.06.2017 observed as follows: “It is to be seen that this Court vide order dated 01.09.2016 disposed of W.P.No.8438 of 2016 directing the Sub-Registrar to consider and register the sale deed presented by the petitioner, if it is in order as per the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and otherwise to record reasons as per Section 71(1) of the Registration Act, 1908. In pursuant to the said order, the Sub-Registrar passed orders vide an endorsement dated 21.09.2016. The validity of the said order cannot be challenged in the contempt case. In view of the same, contempt case is closed.” 12. As the third respondent passed an endorsement dated 21.09.2016, the petitioner preferred appeal before the second respondent, who in-turn registered the same without raising an objection as to limitation under Section 72 of the Registration Act, but did not decide the appeal in accordance with law. thereupon, the petitioner filed W.P.No.39047 of 2018 which was disposed of by this Court by the learned single Judge on 31.10.2018 with following direction: “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 23.07.2017 against refusal order dated 21.09.2016 in P.No.77/2015 within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and take action accordingly after cosndiering the grounds raised by the petitioner.” 13. Since the order in W.P.No.39047 of 2017 dated 31.10.2018 is not complied, the petitioner filed C.C.No.1140 of 2019 and it is pending before the Court. The learned single Judge passed the order directing the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed under Section 72 of the Act, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. The learned single Judge passed the order directing the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed under Section 72 of the Act, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. Later, after initiation of contempt case, the order under challenge i.e. Proceedings No.A/798/2018 dated 18.06.2020 is passed by the second respondent/District Registrar, held as follows : “The appellant sent an appeal application dated 23.07.2017 to the District Registrar, Hindupur through registered post against the said refusal order dated 21.09.2016 i.e. after lapse of ten months from the date of receipt of the refusal order on 28.09.2016 without presenting the original document along with appeal fee before the District Registrar, Hindupur within the stipulated time of thirty days i.e. on receipt of the refusal order i.e. on or before 28.10.2016. After considering all the facts of the case it is hereby ordered that the appeal application dated 23.07.2017 is not filed according to the procedure prescribed under Section 72 and 73 of the Registration Act, 1908 and therefore the appeal is not allowed.” 14. When an order is passed by Sub-Registrar, an appeal lies to the District Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, to refuse and register the document and such appeal shall be presented within thirty (30) days from the date of the order. 15. Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with appeal to Registrar from orders of Sub-Registrar refusing registration on ground other than denial of execution. It deals with an appeal to the District Registrar from the orders of the Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document. There is no prescribed form in which an appeal under this section is to be preferred within 30 days from the impugned order. When there is no legal impediments for the registration of the documents, the party cannot be driven to an appeal. (vide P. Narasimha Reddy and another v. Sub-Registrar, Shameerpeta Mandal, R.R. District, 2005 (2) ALD 807 ). In Nakka Surya Bhagvan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2011 (1) ALT 338 , the Court held that limitation starts “from the date of the order” i.e. from the receipt of the order. 16. In the present case, the petitioner did not mention anywhere as to the date of receipt of copy of the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the third respondent. 16. In the present case, the petitioner did not mention anywhere as to the date of receipt of copy of the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the third respondent. But, as seen from the order, the second respondent calculated the limitation only from the date of refusal order passed was by the third respondent 21.09.2016. In any view of the matter, it is clear that the petitioner is aware about passing of an order, in view of the order in C.C.No.2119 of 2016 dated 30.06.2017 wherein it was specifically stated that, Sub-Registrar passed orders vide endorsement dated 21.09.2016. The order in C.C.No.2119 of 2016 was passed on 30.06.2017. So, atleast by the date of the order in C.C.No.2119 of 2016, the petitioner is having knowledge about passing refusal order dated 21.09.2016 by the third respondent. Even if the limitation is counted from the date of knowledge, it must be filed within thirty days from 30.06.2017 i.e passing orders in C.C.No.2119 of 2016. But, the appeal is sent by registered post after ten months from the date of receipt of acknowledgment of refusal order passed by the third respondent dated 21.09.2016 and filed on 23.07.2017. 17. According to Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, a copy of the order is to be supplied to the petitioner without any unnecessary delay. However, when an order is communicated under proper acknowledgment i.e. on 28.09.2016, the limitation starts from the date of service of such order, according to the principles laid down in the above judgments. Even if the acknowledgment of the receipt of order is not accepted, still the limitation starts from the date of receipt of copy of order of refusal. But, the appeal was not filed even from the date of knowledge of refusal order passed by the third respondent. Therefore, dismissal of appeal by the second respondent on one of the grounds i.e. delay in filing an appeal is justifiable, in view of Section 3 of Limitation Act. 18. One of the major grounds raised by the petitioner is that, when no objection was raised at the time when appeal was filed regarding limitation, the same cannot be raised subsequently. 18. One of the major grounds raised by the petitioner is that, when no objection was raised at the time when appeal was filed regarding limitation, the same cannot be raised subsequently. Merely because an appeal is registered without raising any objection as to the limitation, it does not amount to waiver of plea of limitation and it’s registration is only an administrative order passed by the second respondent herein, but whereas, the order impugned in the writ petition is in the nature of quasi judicial order where limitation is to be considered. 19. Hence, failure to raise ground of limitation at the time of registration of appeal is not at all a ground to set-aside the Proceedings No.A/798/2018 dated 18.06.2020 passed by the second respondent, allowing this writ petition. 20. A bare look at the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the second respondent, the appeal was sent by registered post on 23.07.2017 to the District Registrar, Hindupur against the order of refusal dated 21.09.2016 without presenting the original document along with the appeal before the District Registrar, Hindupur, within the stipulated time. 21. The words “duly presented for registration” means properly, regularly or in true manner according to law. The word “duly” is very significant in arbitrary exercise of power. Chapter XXV of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Rules’) deals with Appeals and Enquiries. According to Rule 165(i), an appeal under Section 72 or an application under Section 73 shall be presented in writing to the Registrar of the District, or to the Officer-in-charge of the Registrar’s office accompanied by copy of the refusal order appealed against and the original document in respect of which the order was passed. According to Rule 165(ii), when the document is stated to be in the possession of some person other than the appellant and the later desires time to obtain and produce it or issue of a summons for its production, the request may be complied with and the application be admitted pending receipt of the document. 22. Thus, the petitioner is bound to produce original document in respect of which the order was passed or in case it is not in his/her possession, summons shall be obtained under Rule 165(ii). 22. Thus, the petitioner is bound to produce original document in respect of which the order was passed or in case it is not in his/her possession, summons shall be obtained under Rule 165(ii). But, the petitioner did not comply with the mandatory requirement under Rule 165(i) & (ii) of the Rules and non-compliance of Rule 165 is also one of the ground for dismissal of appeal, as per the order. 23. At the same time, Rule 166(iii) of the Rules says that an appeal or an application shall not be accepted or acted upon if sent by post. Here, the appeal was admittedly sent by registered post against the refusal order, as observed in penultimate paragraph of the impugned Proceedings No.A/798/2018 dated 18.06.2020 and therefore, it shall be rejected on this ground also. 24. The other reason for dismissal of the appeal is, that the fee on appeal is not paid. Thus, the reasons for dismissal of appeal are not only limitation, but also, non-compliance of Rule 165(i) & (ii), Rule 166(iii) of the Rules and non-payment of fee payable on the appeal. Thus, the appeal was not duly filed, thereby the dismissal of appeal by the second respondent/District Registrar is in accordance with law. 25. On overall consideration of entire material on record, it is evident that the appeal was not properly filed in compliance of Rule 165(i) & (ii), Rule 166(iii) and non-payment of fee payable on the appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, so also on limitation. Hence, the impugned proceedings i.e. Proceedings No.A/798/2018 dated 18.06.2020 cannot be said to be illegal on the ground that this order was against the purport of the order in W.P.No.39047 of 2017 dated 31.10.2018. Though it is contended that the proceedings impugned in the writ petition i.e Proceedings No.A/798/2018 dated 18.06.2020 are in violative of the directions; as the appeal was not considered on merits, in fact, it was not the direction issued by this Court except to dispose of the appeal filed by this petitioner in accordance with law after considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. That does not mean that the appeal cannot be decided on the ground of limitation and noncompliance of various provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 26. That does not mean that the appeal cannot be decided on the ground of limitation and noncompliance of various provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 26. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the Government cannot raise plea of limitation, but plea of limitation is available to either of the parties, including the Government being a litigant on par with a private litigant. The Government may not raise such plea in general, but when such objection was raised, the second respondent being the quasi judicial authority has to consider the same and decide the limitation and other aspects. In case, the appeal is duly preferred in compliance of the Rules, the dismissal solely on the ground of technicality i.e. limitation may be impermissible. But, here, the second respondent dismissed the appeal not only on the ground of limitation, but also for non-compliance of Rule 165(i) & (ii), Rule 166(iii) of the Rules, so also for non-payment of the fee payable on the appeal under Section 72 of the Limitation Act. Hence, I find no illegality in the proceedings issued by the second respondent impugned in the writ petition i.e. Proceedings No.A/798/2018 dated 18.06.2020, consequently the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as the writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the point is answered. 27. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 28. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.