Tatineni Prameela ( Died) as per L.R P2 Vs the State of Ap

TATINENI PRAMEELA (DIED) as per L.R P2, Smt.Tatineni Prameela, W/o. Late Seshagiri Rao, Hindu, aged about 83 years, R/o CRP Quarters, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶11

Smt Tatineni Venkata Padmavathi, W/o Late Tatineni Jitendra, Hindu, Aged about 56 years, Flat No.302, Sai Siddi Enclave, Block -A, Ravi Subbaiah Street, Tadigadapa Donka Road, Yanamalakuduru, Krishna District. Petitioner No.2 is brought on record as L.R of the deceased 1^st petitioner as per the Court's Order dt.19.11.2025 in I.A.No.02 of 2022.

¶12

...Petitioners

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶15

The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶16

The Sub Registrar, Assurances, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

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 to issue writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 3^rd Respondent in non registering the document in favour of petitioner's daughter-in-law Smt.Tatineni Venkata Padmavathi, W/o late Jitendra pertaining to the schedule property, admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.23 cents of land in R.S.No.68/7 and 66/8C of Pelluru village, Pelluru Grama Panchayat, Ongole Mandal as illegal and un-

¶19

2

¶20

constitution and direct the 3^rd Respondent to register the gift deed placed by the petitioner and pass such other orders.

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass such other orders.

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to bring the petitioner No.2 herein who is the legal representative of the deceased petitioner No.1 on record and array her a petitioner No.2 in the main writ petition and as well as in the miscellaneous petitions.

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to receive the Modification in 22 A List dt. 27-03-2023 as additional material paper, and to pass such other orders.

¶27

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein Respondent No. 3 to file counter affidavit and pass such other orders.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioners: SATYANARAYANA DHARA

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) The Court made the following Order:

¶31

Thepresent writ petition is filed challenging the action of the 3^rd respondent in not registering the document in favour of petitioner’s daughterin-law Smt. Tatineni Venkata Padmavathi, W/o late Jitendra pertaining to the schedule property, admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.23 cents of land in R.S.No.68/7 and 66/8C of Pelluru Village, Pelluru Grama Panchayat, Ongole Mandal.

¶32

3

¶33

Heard Sri Satyanarayana Dhara, learned counsel for the petitioners andlearned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps (AP) appearing for the respondents.

¶34

Grievance of the writ petitioners is against the proceedings of the respondents placing the subject property in prohibited category of registration under provisions of Section 22-A 1(a) of the Registration Act, 1908. It is contended by the petitioners that the 1^st petitioner purchased the subject property from her predecessors-in-title for valuable consideration, and her name has already been mutated in the revenue records. After obtaining the necessary permissions she has also made constructions over the subject property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶35

It is contended that the petitioner came to know of the proceedings dated 11.12.2017 issued by the 2^nd respondent while she was proposing to execute a gift deed in favour of her daughter-in-law, she approached the registering authorities. At the said point of time, the petitioner came to know that the subject property had been placed in the prohibited list for registration.

¶36

Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner sought deletion of the subject property from the prohibited list and accordingly filed an application through mee-seva web portal. However, despite filing an application on 27.03.2023, seeking deletion of the subject property from the prohibited category, the respondents have neither acted upon the said application nor deleted the subject property from the prohibited list.

¶37

4

¶38

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the 1^st writ petitioner died and her legal heirs have been brought on record.

¶39

It is further stated that the 1^st petitioner had purchased the subject property for valid consideration and was entitled to enjoy the same as an absolute owner of the property.

¶40

When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps (AP) appearing for the respondents, after seeking several adjournments to ascertain the status of the application dated 27.03.2023, placed instructions before this Court today. A perusal of the said instructions reveals that the application filed by the petitioner is pending for consideration is yet to be placed before the DistrictLevel Scrutiny Committee for prima facie examination and for passing appropriate orders.

¶41

Having regard to the submissions made and the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner has already approached the competent authority, seeking deletion of the subject property from the prohibited list, the said application ought to have been disposed of by the respondents within a reasonable time. However, as considerable time has elapsed without any decision, in the interest of justice, a direction is issued to the 2^nd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation/application

¶42

5

¶43

dated 27.03.2023 filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a stipulated time.

¶44

Having regard to the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the application dated 27.03.2023 filed by the petitioner seeking deletion of the subject property, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶46

______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

03.02.2026

RMR/CMK

6

130