Ravinuthala Raju Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Ravinuthala Raju Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the order dated 30.01.2020 in W.P.No.1981 of 2020: the 4th respondent directed to receive and register the presented house-site document (Sy. No. 436, Kanigiri); no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Draft Memo No. 02/19134/2011 dated 01-12-2011 are illegal, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the facts and circumstances are similar and the Government did not refute coverage, this Court follows and disposes of the writ petition in terms of its earlier order dated 30.01.2020 in W.P.No.1981 of 2020.

Ratio / Principle

In consequence, the 4th respondent is directed to receive and register the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the house site admeasuring Ac. 0-8.38 cents out of a total extent of Ac. 3-48 cents in Sy. No. 436, situated at Kanigiri Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 186/2026, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Justice D. Ramesh, 06.01.2026. Article 226 challenge by Ravinuthala Raju to the Draft Memo No. 02/19134/2011 dated 01-12-2011 of the 2nd respondent (Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps), which barred registration of a house-site document (Ac. 0-8.38 cents out of Ac. 3-48 cents in Sy. No. 436, Kanigiri Village and Mandal, Prakasam District). Counsel relied on this Court's order dated 30.01.2020 in W.P.No.1981 of 2020 covering identical memo-based refusal; the reproduced paras of that order hold refusal to register on a memo of the Tahsildar or any other officer to be illegal (S. 71 Registration Act context), citing the Division Bench judgments P.Narasimha Reddy v. Sub-Registrar, Shameerpeta Mandal and S.Nagi Reddy v. Joint Registrar, Tirupati, and two earlier single-Judge writ orders; the Assistant Government Pleader did not refute coverage. This petition was disposed of in terms of that order: the 4th respondent (Sub-Registrar, Kanigiri) directed to receive and register the presented document; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed. Single-member bench; no dissent. Note: the memo number prints as '02/19134/2011' in this petition's prayers but 'G2/19134/2011' within the quoted paras of W.P.No.1981 of 2020.

APHC010715842025

[3208]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

WRIT PETITION NO: 186/2026

Between:

RAVINUTHALA RAJU, S/O. KONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62, OCC BUSINESS HOUSE NO. 11-1-26/3, SANTHOSH NAGAR KANDUKIIR, KANDUKUR MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAI SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ARNARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.

THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, GOVT, OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REGISTRATION BHAVAN GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.- 3.

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, , ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4.

THE SUBREGISTRAR, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 a V/rit of Mandamus or any other appropriate V/rit Order or orders, Direction to declare the proceedings of he 2nd Respondent in Draft Memo No. 02/19134/2011 dt.01-12-2011 as illegal, without jurisdiction and Unconstitutional ana to issued consequential direction to the 4TH respondent to receive and register the document that may be presented

2

by the petitioners for registration in respect of the House site for of Ac. 0-8.38 cents out of total extent for an extent of Ac. 3.48 cents an extent in Sy. No. 436 , situated in Kanigiri village and Mandal, Prakasam District., without reference to the memo of the 2Nd respondent bearing No. 02/19134/2011 dt.01-12-2011 and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 eased to direct documents that lliay he Petition it is hereby prayed that this the 4TH Respondent to receive and register the presented by the petitioners for registration in respect of the House site for an extent of Ac. 0-8.38 cents out of total extent for an extent of Ac. 3.48 cents in Sy. No. 436 , situated in Kanigiri village and Mandal, Prakasam District., reference to the memo of the respondent bearing No.without G2/19134/2011 dt.01-12-2011 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.VENKATESWARLU GADA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

The Court made the following:

3

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

“….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the proceedings of the 2^nd Respondent in Draft Memo No. 02/19134/2011 dated 01-12-2011 as illegal, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional; and consequently to issue a direction to the 4^th Respondent to receive and register the document that may be presented by the petitioners for registration in respect of the house site admeasuring Ac. 0-8.38 cents out of a total extent of Ac. 3-48 cents in Sy. No. 436, situated at Kanigiri Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, without reference to the memo of the 2^nd Respondent bearing No. 02/19134/2011 dated 01-12-2011, and to pass such other order or orders…”

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

Learned counsel for petitioner straight away takes this Court through the order, dated 30.01.2020, passed by this Court in W.P.No.1981 of 2020 as the facts and circumstances of this case are similar to that of this case.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader does not refute the submission that the said order covers the matter before this Court in this writ petition.

4

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

“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.

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 directing the 4^th respondent to receive and register, if it is not prohibited by any order or law, the document

5

by following the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra.”

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 house site admeasuring Ac. 0-8.38 cents out of a total extent of Ac. 3-48 cents in Sy. No. 436, situated at Kanigiri Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

JUSTICE D. RAMESH

6^th January, 2026 cbn

6

386

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

Writ Petition No.186 of 2026

6^th January, 2026

cbn