Vakayalapati Sujatha Vijaya Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

“…..pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or orders, Direction to declare the proceedings of the 2^nd Respondent in Draft Memo No 02/19134/2011 dt 01.12.2011 as illegal without jurisdiction and Unconstitutional and to issued consequential direction to the 4^th respondent to receive and register the document that may be presented by the petitioner for registration in respect of the vacant house site Door No.11-465-3-2 (Eastern Side of plot no 49) for an admeasuring of 97-33 Sq Yards (East West 14 ½ Feet and North South 60 feet, Ward No 9 in Sy.No.190/2 situated in Podili village and Mandal, Markapuram Revenue Division, Prakasam District without reference to the Memo of the 2^nd respondent bearing No G2/19134/2011 dt 01.12.2011…..”

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration.

¶26

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar set of facts, this Court passed an order dated 30.01.2020 in W.P. No.1981 of 2020 and prayed this Court to consider the same and dispose of the present Writ Petitioner.

¶27

3

¶28

NV,J W.P.No.7461 of 2025

¶29

Learned Government Pleader does not refute the submission that the said order covers the matter before this Court in this Writ Petition.

¶30

The relevant paragraphs of the order passed in W.P.No.1981 of 2020 are extracted hereunder:

¶31

“The main ground urged by this petitioner is that when the document is presented for registration, rejection of the same based on the draft Memo No.G2/19134/2011, dated 01.12.2011 with District Registrar, Ongole vide Endorsement No.G1/1382/2011, dated 09.12.2011. The memo was issued in view of the injunction orders passed by the High Court of Madras. The Madras High Court directed based on a letter from Rev.B.M.Sudheer to the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration, State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad not to register any deeds of conveyance by any of the parties to any of the parties in respect of the properties covered under the scheme. But, the order was not communicated to Registrar except the letter of Rev.B.M.Sudheer to the District Registrar, who in turn issued such direction.

¶32

According to the order under challenge under Section 71 of the Registration Act, refusal to register a document on the memo issued by Tahsildar or any other officer is illegal in view of the judgments of the Division Bench in P.Narasimha Reddy V. Sub-Registrar, Shameerpeta Mandal, Ranga Reddy District¹ and S.Nagi Reddy v. Joint Registrar, Tirupati². Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition is contrary to the law declared by the Division Bench and also another judgment of single Judge in W.P.No.10721 of 2016, dated 01.04.2016, W.P.No.34689 of 2012, dated 12.12.2012. Hence, the impugned proceedings are hereby set aside while

¶33

4

¶34

NV,J W.P.No.7461 of 2025

¶35

directing the 4th respondent to receive and register, if it is not prohibited by any order or law, the document by following the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra."

¶36

Following the said order, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms thereof, directing the 4^th respondent to receive and register the document presented by the petitioner for registration in respect of the property of an extent of 97-33 sq.yards, Door No.11-465-3-2, situated at Podili Village and Mandal, Markapuram Revenue Division, Prakasam District.

¶37