ORDER : Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…pass an order or direction , more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring to keep the residential land an extent Ac-0.03 cents with house bearing No. 11-2-22, Municipal town Sy No. 1762/2 and 1762/3, Ward No.4, new ward No.22 of Narasaraopet municipality is illegal and erroneous and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to register by entertaining thet document presented by the Petitioner in respect of the residential land an extent Ac-0.03 cents with house bearing No. 11-2-22, Municipal town Sy No. 1762/2 and 1762/3, Ward No.4, new ward No.22 of Narasaraopet municipality, Palnadu District and pass…” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, out of Ac.0.15 cents in old Sy.No.343/2/B in T.S.No.1762/2 and 1762/3 situated at Ramireddypet, Narasaraopet, an extent of Ac.0.03½ cents belongs to the petitioner’s grandfather, who executed a Will Deed bearing No.107/BK3/1990. In pursuance of the said Will, the petitioner and two others became owners and possessors of an extent of Ac.0.03½ cents, while the petitioner’s uncle, Sri Madiraju Ramachandra Murthy, became the owner and possessor of the remaining Ac.0.11½ cents upon the death of the petitioner’s grandfather. However, the records of respondent No.3 indicates that an extent of Ac.0.14827 cents in Sy.No.343/2/B is classified as Government land. 3. The petitioner further submits that the said land is not Government land but private property. Thus, the petitioner seeks a direction to direct the Sub-Registrar to receive and register the will deed. 4. The petitioner further submits that petitioner’s uncle by name Madiraju Ramachandra Murthy filed W.P.No.18223 of 2025 for the same subject land. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 24.07.2025 with a direction to the respondents to entertain the registration in respect of the same subject land covered under the same survey numbers and town survey numbers with ward No.4, new No.22 of Narasaraopet. Thus, the petitioner requested to pass similar order in the present writ petition. 5. Heard Sri G.V. Ramana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. Thus, the petitioner requested to pass similar order in the present writ petition. 5. Heard Sri G.V. Ramana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) envisages that “Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall 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 document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded”. Clause (2) of the Act envisages that “No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered”. 7. Section 71 of the Act clearly provides that Sub-Registrar shall either register the document, if it is otherwise in accordance with law, or record reasons for such an order in book No.2 and endorse the words ‘registration refused’. 8. In view of the above, without touching the merits of the case, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.3 either to register the document or reject the document with a reasoned order and communicate same to the petitioner as envisaged under Section 71 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.