The Telangana High Court has held that non-registration of a document under section 22 A of the Registration Act, 1908 doesn’t prevent the person from the right to enjoy his property The petitioner, M/s. Invecta Technologies Private Limited vide sale deed dated 19.11.2017 purchased the land measuring Acs.3.10¼ guntas in survey Nos.674, 714 and 715/A situate at Devarayamjal Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’) from one P.Suseela. According to the petitioner, since 1955, the subject land is a patta land held by the vendors of the petitioner and their predecessor. The petitioner presented the sale deed for registration which was not received for registration. On a writ petition filed, the Bench of this Court issued a direction to the authorities to receive the document as per the provisions of the Act and passed necessary orders. Thereupon, Sub Registrar, Shameerpet by an order dated 18.02.2008 received the document but refused to register the sale deed on the ground that the subject land belongs to a temple as notified vide G.O.Ms.No.810, dated 14.10.2004. It was further held that the State Government has prohibited the registration of the document and the same cannot be registered without the permission of the Endowment Commissioner. The petitioner in the writ petition has sought a relief that Section 22A of the Act, as incorporated vide Act No.19 of 2007, with effect from 20.06.2007 is struck down. The petitioner has sought quashment of orders passed by the Sub Registrar as well as the District Registrar and seeks a direction to respondent No.3 to register the sale deed dated 19.11.2007 executed in favour of the petitioner.  Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N V Shravan Kumar observed that Section 17 of the Act enumerates the documents for which registration is compulsory. Thus, Section 17 does not confer any right on any person to seek registration of a document. Section 22A, which provides registration of certain documents, in no way constitutes any infraction of the legislative mandate contained in Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, the contention that Section 22A of the Act is violative of Section 17 of the Act and is, therefore, arbitrary is misconceived. The authority has to exercise the power under Section 22A of the Act in consonance with guidelines. “Therefore, the contention that the exercise of power under Section 22A of the Act is unbridled or unfettered does not deserve acceptance. Even otherwise, a mere possibility of misuse of a provision would not invalidate the same.”, the bench held.