JUDGMENT : R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. 1. As both the Writ Appeals arise out of similar transactions and are in relation to the same parties, they are being disposed of by way of this common Judgment. 2. The respondent herein had presented two deeds of gift executed by him in favour of his wife. Under the first deed of gift, dated 30.06.2018, the respondent sought to gift an extent of 945 square yards of land to his wife. This document was given pending Document No. 352 of 2018, by the 2nd appellant herein. Similarly, the respondent sought to gift an extent of 1305 sq.yards of land in favour of his wife, by way of deed of gift dated 30.06.2018 which was pending Document No. 353 of 2018, by the 2nd appellant. Subsequently, the 2nd appellant, by an order dated 19.07.2018, had refused registration of both the deeds of gift on the ground that the respondent had executed various deeds of sale alienating all the land owned by him and the deeds of gift were seeking to alienate land which was not available to the respondent. For this purpose, the 2nd appellant invoked the provisions of Section 22-B of the Registration Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said orders of refusal, the respondent had approached the 1st appellant, by way of an appeal. Both the appeals were dismissed by the 1st appellant, by an order dated 29.01.2020. 4. Aggrieved by these orders, the respondent had approached this Court, by way of W.P. No.15527 of 2020 and W.P. No.15542 of 2020. The primary contention raised by the respondent, before the learned Single Judge, was that the language of Section 22-B would be applicable only to deeds of sale and the provisions of Section 22-B of the Registration Act cannot be invoked to refuse registration of deeds of gift. The learned Single Judge accepted this contention and allowed the Writ Petitions setting aside the rejection orders dated 19.07.2018 and the subsequent appellate orders dated 29.01.2020 with a further direction to the 2nd appellant to receive and register the said documents. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge in both these Writ Petitions dated 29.07.2021, these two appeals have been filed before this Court. 6. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge in both these Writ Petitions dated 29.07.2021, these two appeals have been filed before this Court. 6. Section 22-B of the Registration Act reads as follows: "Section 22-B: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in force, no Registering Office shall accept for registration of any document relating to the sale of any immovable property, if the property comprised therein has already been conveyed or permanently alienated by the same person or his representative, assignee or agent in favour of any other person by a registered document unless the previous registered document is cancelled by order of a court". 7. The learned Single Judge held that Section 22-B empowered the Registering Officer not to accept registration of a document relating to sale of immovable property only and that the said provisions would not empower or authorize the registering authority to reject the registration of deeds of gift. The learned Single Judge took this view on the ground that sale of immovable property is defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act whereas a deed of gift is covered under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. 8. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants seeks to assail this view of the learned Single Judge, by relying upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Doypack Systems Private Limited vs. Union of India and Others (1988) 2 SCC 299 , Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain and Others vs. Eknath Vithal Ogale (1995) 2 SCC 665 , Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs. Mahesh and Others (2022) 2 SCC 772 and S. Ambika and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 9. In M/s. Doypack Systems Private Limited vs. Union of India and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question of whether certain shares stood transferred and whether certain immovable properties of the company in question had vested in the government, on account of acquisition of the said company by the government under the provisions of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986, had considered the ambit of the term "arising out of". While interpreting these words, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered various other terms including "in relation to" to hold that such expressions are expressions of expansion and not of contraction. In Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain and Others vs. Eknath Vithal Ogale, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was again considering the phrase "relating to recovery of possession" and had held that such a provision should be read expansively and such a term cannot be treated to reduce ambit of the provision. 10. In Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs. Mahesh and Others, while considering the language of clause-A of Section 24(1) of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 and more specifically the words "all the provisions relating to determination of compensation" had held that such term should be interpreted to give an expansive and wider meaning to the provision in which such a term is available. 11. This Court in S. Ambika and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 2023(1) ALT33 while considering the provisions of Section 71 and 22-B of the Registration Act, in a case where a joint family partition and settlement deed had been refused to be registered by the registering authority, had held that the Sub-Registrar could not refuse registration as the Sub-Registrar cannot decide title of parties and go into the terms of earlier documents. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the Judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in District Collector, Anantapur District vs. M. Sadasiva Reddy 2017 (2) ALD 24 (DB) and more specifically the guidelines issued by the Division Bench in paragraph 4(viii) which is extracted herein. viii) It is made clear that the registering authorities shall not have any adjudicatory right in respect of the property covered by the document presented for registration except informing reasons for refusing the registration or cancelling the registration. It is further made clear that none of the observations made in this order shall dilute either the directions issued in the Full Bench Judgment or the observations made therein". 13. The language in Section 22-B is very clear. Its specifically states that the registering authorities are empowered to refuse registration of deeds of sale where it is found that the vendor had already alienated all the land belonging to him. 13. The language in Section 22-B is very clear. Its specifically states that the registering authorities are empowered to refuse registration of deeds of sale where it is found that the vendor had already alienated all the land belonging to him. The learned Government Pleader would urge that the words "relating to the sale of any immovable property" should be interpreted, in the light of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases. He contends that such an interpretation would include deeds of gift also. 14. This Court cannot accept such a contention. The language, in Section 22-B, is clear and unambiguous. In fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Doypack Systems Private Limited vs. Union of India and Others had held as follows: 58. The words in the statute must, prima facie, be given their ordinary meanings. Where the grammatical construction is clear and manifest and without doubt, that construction ought to prevail unless there are some strong and obvious reasons to the contrary. Nothing has been shown to warrant that literal constructions should not be given effect to. See Chandavarkar S.R. Rao v. Ashalata approving 44 Halsbury's Laws of England, 4thedn., paragraph 856 at page 552, Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgumated Collieries Limited. It must be emphasized that interpretation must be in consonance with the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution. 59. It has to be reiterated that the object of interpretation of a statute is to discover the intention of the Parliament as expressed in the Act. The dominant purpose in construing a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature as expressed in the statute, considering it as a whole and in its context. That intention, and therefore the meaning of the statute, is primarily to be sought in the words used in the statute itself, which must, if they are plain and unambiguous, be applied as they stand. In the present case, the words used represent the real intention of the Parliament as we have found not only from the clear words used but also from the very purpose of the vesting of the shares. In the present case, the words used represent the real intention of the Parliament as we have found not only from the clear words used but also from the very purpose of the vesting of the shares. If we bear in mind the fact that these shares were acquired from out of the investments made by these two companies and furthermore that the assets of the company as such minus the shares were negative and further the Act in question was passed to give effect to the principles enunciated in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution, we are left with no doubt that the shares vested in the Central Government by operation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. See in this connection the observations of Halsbury's Laws of England, 4thedn., Volume 44, paragraph 856 at page 522 and the cases noted therein". 15. In the light of this settled principle of law, this Court cannot hold that the language in Section 22-B of the Registration Act would lend itself to an interpretation empowering the registering authorities to refuse registration of deeds of gift by invoking Section 22-B of the Registration Act. 16. The learned Government Pleader has also relied upon G.O. Ms.No.398 dated 28.11.2014 wherein Rule 30 of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules had been amended to require the registering authorities to insist upon production of sub-division statements in relation to agricultural lands and reference of approved lay out for vacant sites of non agricultural lands, before registering a document of alienation, to contend that the said power can be invoked. 17. The respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit in which it is stated that the land in his possession, upon measurement, was found to be far more than the extent of land set out in the sale deed. In view of the excess land available with him, he had sold the additional land and sought to gift the original land purchased by him to his wife. 18. Rule 30 of the Registration Rules clearly permits the registering authority to insist for production of the layout plan, approved by the competent authority, before any deed of alienation of nonagricultural land has to be registered. 18. Rule 30 of the Registration Rules clearly permits the registering authority to insist for production of the layout plan, approved by the competent authority, before any deed of alienation of nonagricultural land has to be registered. In these circumstances, these appeals are disposed of with the following directions: 1) The 2nd appellant could not have refused registration of the deeds of gift presented by the respondent under the provisions of Section 22-B of the Registration Act; 2) The 2nd appellant would have the authority to refuse registration under Rule 30 of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules, unless the conditions set out in Rule 30 are complied with; 3) There is a disputed question of fact as to whether the respondent is in possession of the land that is sought to be gifted to his wife and whether he has ownership rights over those lands. The said dispute cannot be decided by this Court in as much as evidence is required before any finding can be given in this regard; 4) It would be open to the respondent to obtain necessary declarations from the appropriate Court of law declaring his right and ownership over the land that is sought to be gifted to his wife and thereafter the 2nd appellant would be entitled to insist upon layout approvals being obtained from the competent authority before accepting the documents for registration. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.