V.V.S. Rao, J.The petitioner-society challenges the action of the 1st respondent in registering the documents in survey Nos.87, 88 and 89 at Preston Institute, Jangaon, Warangal district, contrary to the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity the Act, 1908).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in survey Nos.87, 88, 89, 146, 158, 159 and 160 situate at Jangaon stands in the name of Rev, Rutherford and Rev. Unruh and who subsequently transferred the land in the name of the petitioner-society in the year 1975-76. The petitioner established schools, hostels, church, hospitals and constructed a compound wall called as Preston Institute. The machineries, which purchased the property, left India and the petitioner-society is administering the property since 1975. The petitioner-society came to know that the property was again mutated during the year 1994-95 in the name of M/s. American Baptist Foreign Mission Society, U.S.A. After coming to know this, the petitioner-society filed an application u/s 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon Division, Warangal district. The matter was disposed of by the said official on 12-9-2000 directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jangaon to initiate enquiry and issue fresh pattedar pass books and title deeds to the petitioner-society. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer passed orders on 3-2-2001 mutating the lands in favour of the petitioner-society covered by survey Nos.87, 88, 89 and 158/1 admeasuring an extent of Acs.27-29 gts. The petitioner-society is in possession and occupation of the same, where the Preston High School, Preston Junior College, Staff quarters, two hostel buildings, play grounds, and grave yard are situated. Some of the unauthorised persons encroached upon the petitioners lands and the 1st respondent entertained documents for registration and executed registered sale deeds in favour of the unauthorised persons. The vendors, who executed those sale deeds, have no right, title or interest over the land in question and, therefore, 1st respondent committed illegality in registering the documents. Those persons, who obtained registered sale deeds, are now making attempts to raise structures. Having come to know that certain persons approached the 3rd respondent seeking building permissions, the petitioner-society filed the present writ petition.

3. After receiving notice, the 1st respondent has filed counter affidavit. The writ petition is opposed on the ground that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to refuse the registration of documents, if they are in accordance with the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908. It is also stated that the 1st respondent has no power or jurisdiction to enquire into or the validity of the document in question, the question of title of the executant and other related issues. Reliance is placed on Section 58 of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity the Rules). It is also stated that when the documents were presented in the month of February, 2001, they were kept pending due to deficiency in the stamp duty, that the documents were referred to the Collector (District Registrar) u/s 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for determination of the market value. After determining the market value, the documents were released after receipt of the deficit stamp duty; and that five documents are still kept pending in view of the deficiency in stamp duty.

4. Part-XI of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with the duties and powers of the registering officers. It shall be the duty of the registering officer to admit the document without unnecessary delay and proceed with the registration. If, for any reason, the registering officer refused to register the document, he has to record reasons and furnish a copy of the reasons, on a request made by the person presenting the document for registration. In case, the registration is refused, the person aggrieved may file an appeal before the Registrar, who may reverse or alter the orders passed by the Sub-Registrar. In the event of the appellate authority refusing the appeal, the party aggrieved thereby may approach the Civil Court as per Section 77 of the Act, 1908 within thirty (30) days after rejection of the appeal. If the document is registered by the registering authority, the Act, 1908 does not give any remedy to the person aggrieved. Herein a reference be made to Rule 58 of the Rules, which reads as under:

"Rule.58:- It forms no part of registering officers duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute the document; but he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated below:

(a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be;

(b) that the document is forged;

(c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has no right to appear in that capacity;

(d) that the executing party is not really dead as alleged by the party applying for registration; or

(e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic."

A reading of the above provisions would show that the power of the registering officer is limited to enquire into the validity of the document brought to him for registration or to enquire into any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party has no right to execute the document. The limited power of the registering officer to enquire into objections that the executing party had no right to execute document get extinguished the moment the document is registered. No such power inheres in the registering officer or the District Registrar to cancel the sale deed, unless another document for cancellation is presented with proper stamp duty and registration charges. A party aggrieved by a registered document on conveyance has to file civil suit seeking appropriate declaration u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act, read with Article 59 of the Schedule under the Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963). The writ petition is not a proper remedy.

5. The writ petition cannot be accepted for yet another reason. The writ petitioner makes a very vague averment as to the persons, who executed the registered sale deeds and as to the persons, who are vendees of such sale deeds. Without the petitioner making interested persons as parties to the writ petition, no contention can be accepted that the vendors have no title and that the vendees are likely to obtain permission from the 3rd respondent for constructing of houses. It is well settled that, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no direction or declaration can be issued as prayed, unless proper and necessary parties are arrayed as respondents in the writ petition vide Prabodh Verma and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, .

6. For the above reasons, the writ petition fails. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.