Pinnamaraju Lakshmi Rekha Vs the State of Ap

PINNAMARAJU LAKSHMI REKHA, W/O. PINNAMARAJU SATYANARAYANA RAJU, AGED 53 YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 6-22-10/6, FLAT NO. 401, NEELAKASH APARTMENTS, EAST POINT COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. .

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL, (REGISTRATION STAMPS), GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GUNTUR. 3.

¶16

THE SUBREGISTRAR, ANANDAPURAM VISAKHAPATNAM. 4.

¶17

TOTTEMPUDI DEVAKINANDANA, SIO. LAKSHMI NARAYANA (LATE) AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 401, SURYA VILAS APARTMENTS, OPP. CANARA BANK, BALAJINAGAR, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5.

¶18

MALISETTY KANNAMMA, W/O. LATE SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED 75 YEARS, RIO. BADDAPUDIPALEM, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT

¶19

MALISETTY RAMANAMMA, W/O. SRINU (LATE) AGED 51 YEARS, RIO. BADDAPUDIPALEM, PENDURTHI MANDAL,

¶20

DR,J W.P.NO.35305 of 2025

¶21

VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 7.

¶22

MALISETTY SATYAPRAKASH, S/O. SRINU (LATE) AGED 28 YEARS, RIO. BADDAPUDIPALEM, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 8.

¶23

MALISETTY DEVI, D/O. SRINU LATE AGED 25 YEARS, RIO. BADDAPUDIPALEM, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 9.

¶24

MALISETTY KANAKAMAHALAKSHMI, W/O. LATE APPA RAO, AGED 58 YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 58-1-315, GAVARAVEEDHI, BUTCHIRAJUPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 10.

¶25

MALISETTY SATYA KUMAR, S/O. LATE APPA RAO, AGED 41 YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 58-1-315, GAVARAVEEDHI, BUTCHIRAJUPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 11.

¶26

IRRA ANASUYA, W/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 39 YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 5-17, BODDAPUDIPALEM, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶27

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶28

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in entertaining registration in violation of injunction orders dated 18.2.2009 passed in I.A.No.1516 of 2008 in O.S.No. 295 of 2008 on the file of IX Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam is illegal and arbitrary and violation of 14 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to entertain registrations in respect of land situated in an extent Ac.3.81 cents in Sy.NO.70/P, Gandigundam Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District covered by interim injunction orders in O.S.No. 295 of 2008 on the file of IX Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam and to pass

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶30

1.V V SATISH

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶32

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶33

2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

¶34

DR,J W.P.NO.35305 of 2025

¶35

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶36

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.3 in entertaining the documents presented

¶37

by respondent Nos.4 to 11 despite having an injunction order against respondent Nos.4 to 11 in I.A.No.1516 of 2008 in O.S.No.295 of 2008 on the file of learned IX Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam.

¶38

Initially, interim orders were granted on 18.02.2009 restraining the alienation of schedule properties and the said injunction orders have been extended until further orders by 02.04.2009.

¶39

The case of the petitioner is that when the respondents are trying to alienate the property and create third party rights, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents on 03.10.2020. Further again, respondents are proceeding with the alienation and submitting documents and the petitioner has filed one more representation/ objection on 29.11.2025 before the 3^rd respondent. Despite receipt of the same, the respondents have refused to entertain the objections on the ground that he is not a party to the suit. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶40

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the circular issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, AP, Hyderabad on 10.03.2010, wherein the commissioner has specifically issued

¶41

DR,J W.P.NO.35305 of 2025

¶42

an order based on the standing order No.219(b) and the relevant portion is

¶43

extracted hereunder:

¶44

“ If the Andhra Pradesh High Court or any other Civil Court restrains a person from alienating a property and if such orders are brought to the notice of the Registering Officers is served on the Registering Officer. The Registering Officer is stopped from going ahead with the Registration.”

¶45

Learned counsel further submits that such circular has been considered

¶46

by this Hon’ble Court in several writ petitions.

¶47

Reply to the said contention, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions from the 3^rd respondent, has made his submissions that the respondents are not entertaining any registration until interim orders are vacated.

¶48

Recording the said submission, the writ petition is disposed of. As this Court has not passed any order on merits, notice to respondent Nos.4 to 11 is dispensed with.

¶49

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶51

Date: 18.12.2025 Dvs

¶52

DR,J W.P.NO.35305 of 2025

¶53

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶54

203