This judgment dismisses a Writ Appeal against an order allowing a Writ Petition seeking registration of property deeds. The bench observed that the appellants did not seek to set aside the impugned letter in the underlying petition, precluding the judge from reviewing its validity. Consequently, the appeal failed for lack of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
/ %■ ,
APHC010284142025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADE$H
BS
AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT APPEAL NO: 758 OF 202^
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order dated 09-04-2025 in WP.No.37129 of 2022 on the file of High Courts
Between:
Srinagar Colony, Guntur.
Household, Srinagar Colony, Guntur.
N.G.O.Colony, Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam
...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1,2 & 4 to 8
f
AND -
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -
...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER No.3
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. RAMMOHAN ^
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2:GP FOR STAMPS AND''
REGISTRATION
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI SOMISETTY GANESH BABU, SC FOR VUDA AND MUDA
Counsel for the Respondent No.4:—
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
APHC010284142025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3541] (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT APPEAL NO: 758/2025
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent above named appellants beg to present this Memorandum of Writ Appealagainsttheorder dated 09-04-2025 in WP.No.37129/2022 passed by learned Single Judge
Between:
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
.9
2
RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No. 758 of 2025
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1.M RAMMOHAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S);
3
RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No.758of2025
The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri M. Rammohan, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, learned counsel for the private respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps, appearing for the official respondents.
“... to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularlya writ in the nature of mandamus to declare the endorsement Proceedings of the 2^^ respondent dt.28.10.2022 intimating ban on registration of house site plots situated in Sy.No.34 & 35 of Rushikonda Village covered by L.P.No.36/2009and Sy.No.370 & 371 of Madhurawada Village covered by L.P.No. 16/2011 basing on a letter addressed to it by the 3rd
4
RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No.758 of 2025''''
respondent in Rc. No. 5973/09/1-1/Dt. 12.04.2012, as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the 2”^ respondent to process the conveyance deeds of the Petitionershouse sites for registration without reference to the impugnedletter dt.12.04.2012 as and when presented to it, and passsuch other order or orders...”
- A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order, dated 09.04.2025, had allowed the Writ Petition, following an earlier order passed in W.P.No.23217 of 2012, dated 12.12.2012, in the followingmanner:
“In view of the same, the writ petition is disposedof directing the 2"^^ respondent to receive the documents that may be presented by the petitioners in respect of subject properties and to register the same after complyingwiththe provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is made clear that, mere registration of documents would not absolve the liability of the petitionersandtheir successors-in-interest from the future litigation if any, including the result of the suits that were filed bythe 3'"^ respondent. ”
- The appellants have approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal, on the ground that the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the letter, dated 12.04.2012, in as much as the same was the basis for refusal of the 2^^^ respondent and in any event, the said letter was arbitrary and requires to be set aside.
I
5
RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No.758of2025
- A perusal of the prayer in the Writ Petition would show that no relief in the nature of setting aside the letter, dated 12.04.2012, had been sought. In the absence of such a prayer, it cannot be held that the learned
Single Judge was required to go into the issue of whether the letter, dated 12.04.2012 is valid or not.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY. REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER
To,
ssb
4
HIGH COURT
DATED:07/07/2025
JUDGMENT WA No.758 OF 2025
^3IJUL 2025 ,
DISMISSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Appeal should be allowed in the absence of a specific prayer to set aside the impugned letter from the third respondent.
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in not striking down the letter dated 12.04.2012 which formed the basis of refusal of registration.
Nara Adilakshmi
Chennupati Sambrajya m.
State of Andhra Pradesh
Joint Sub-Registrar, Madhurawada
Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority
R. Raghunandan Rao
Sumathi Jagadam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
