JUDGMENT : Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J. Heard Sri Keerthi Kiran Kota, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following prayer: “…..to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 4th respondent herein in refusing to receive, register and release the documents/sale deeds presented by the petitioners in respect of their land admeasuring 408 Sq. yards in Plot No. 22B in Sy.No.76-115; 392 Sq. yards in Plot No. 71 in Sy.No.76-114; 225 Sq. Yards in plot No. 151 in Sy.No.76-112; 225 Sq.Yards in plot No.152 in Sy.No.76-113 of Mudapaka Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Vishakhapatnam District., as being illegal, arbitrary, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the principles of law and consequently issue a direction to the 3rd and 4th respondents herein to receive, register and release the document/sale deed presented by the petitioners in respect to the above mentioned lands and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Writ Petitioner No.1 (Vendor) sold certain parcels of land to Writ Petitioner No.2 (Vendee) admeasuring 408 Sq. yards in Plot No.22B in Sy.No.76-115; 392 Sq. yards in Plot No.71 in Sy.No.76-114; 225 Sq. Yards in Plot No.151 in Sy.No.76-112; 225 Sq. Yards in Plot No.152 in Sy.No.76-113 of Mudapaka Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Vishakhapatnam District. Both the Writ Petitioners (Vendors and Vendee) have sought to execute the Sale Deed dated 02.03.2024 and register the same. When the sale deed was presented for registration, Respondent No.4 herein had refused to receive, register and release the Sale Deed presented by the Writ Petitioners on the ground that W.P.No.868 of 2024 is pending before the Hon’ble Court. Questioning the refusal to register the Sale Deed dated 02.03.2024, this Writ Petition is filed. It is also stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the said W.P.No.868 of 2024 has been filed by some persons alleging that they have not given any consent for taking over of the land which is in their possession for the development of lay-out. It is also stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the said W.P.No.868 of 2024 has been filed by some persons alleging that they have not given any consent for taking over of the land which is in their possession for the development of lay-out. It is also stated that this Hon’ble Court had issued certain Interim Orders on 10.01.2024 in W.P.No.868 of 2024 directing the Official Respondents therein not to interfere with the possession of the Writ Petitioners therein over the subject lands and not to execute any further Conveyance Deeds. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the survey numbers which are covered under the Interim Order of this Court dated 10.01.2024 in W.P.No.868 of 2024 are not the same survey numbers relating to the present sale transaction. 4. In the present Writ Petition, the Writ Petitioners are placing reliance on Section 71 & 72 of REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 and would submit that the Official Respondents are obligated under the Statute to receive the Sale Deeds, process the same and register and deliver the documents to the parties. 5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners places reliance on the Order of this Court in Salimeni Ravindra Vs. State of A.P and Other in W.P.No.10392 of 2021 dated 15.06.2021. Relevant portion is usefully extracted hereunder: “3. During hearing, Sri G.Kondala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the property under a registered sale deed from one Pola Sankaraiah, S/o.Pola Chinnabbi for a valid consideration and obtained registered sale deed. Later, he executed a gift deed in favour of his wife and presented the same for registration. But, the 2nd respondent had neither rejected nor registered the said document in accordance with law. When a document is presented for registration, it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar to receive the same and if it is not in compliance of the provisions of law, the Sub-Registrar may refuse to register the document recording the reasons thereof. 4. But, the 2nd respondent had neither rejected nor registered the said document in accordance with law. When a document is presented for registration, it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar to receive the same and if it is not in compliance of the provisions of law, the Sub-Registrar may refuse to register the document recording the reasons thereof. 4. Section 71 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 obligates the Registrar or Sub- Registrar to record reasons for refusal to register a document presented for registration and make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No.2 and endorse the words “registration refused” on the presented document for registration in accordance with Rules 161 to 164 of the rules framed under the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908. A copy of the reasons shall be furnished to the person, who presented the document. But, in the present facts of the case, the Sub-Registrar did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 71 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 and Rules 161 to 164 of the rules but he refused to receive the document presented for registration. Therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent is illegal in refusing to receive the document. Hence, the inaction of the 2nd respondent is declared as illegal and arbitrary, while directing the Sub-Registrar/2nd respondent to receive the document presented for registration, if it is in compliance with the provisions of the Act and in case the Sub-Registrar intends to refuse registration of the document, he shall pass appropriate orders strictly in terms of Section 71 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 and Rules 161 to 164 framed there under, within a week from the date of receipt of this Order, on presentation of document executed by petitioner. 5. With the above direction, Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6. Having considered the above facts and also the Order passed by this Court, as cited by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, this Court is of the view that the law is well settled that the Sub-Registrar/Registrar, cannot orally refuse to receive the document and would consider the fitness of it for registration or otherwise. Having considered the above facts and also the Order passed by this Court, as cited by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, this Court is of the view that the law is well settled that the Sub-Registrar/Registrar, cannot orally refuse to receive the document and would consider the fitness of it for registration or otherwise. Section 71 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 empowers the Registration Authorities to receive a document which is presented for registration and process the same, and thereafter, either register such Sale Deed or any other document or pass a Refusal Order. 7. Having considered the above contentions, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the above Order. The Official Respondents are directed to receive the Sale Deed dated 02.03.2024, process the same, and thereafter, either register the document, if it is found legally fit or pass an Order of Refusal by indicating the reasons for such refusal to register as per Section 71 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908. No Order as to Costs. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this Order.