Poguri Eswaraiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

POGURI ESWARAIAH, S/O. SIDDAIAH, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. FLAT NO.401, P.V.R.PLAZA, BHAGYA NAGAR COLONY - 2, OPP . SIVA PARVATHI THEATER, KUKATPALLY, MEDCHAL, MALKAZGIRI, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

DISTRICT REGISTRAR, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT AT KADAPA.

¶14

SUBREGISTRAR, PULLAMPET, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Proceedings in Progs.No. Refusal No. 14/2021, dated 17.12.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent, thereby refusing to register document of Sale Deed dated 15.12.202 I executed by petitioner's vendor in favour of petitioner and keeping the same as pending document i.e., P.No.50/2021, even after receiving the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee connected to registration of petitioner's house site bearing plot No.19 and 20

¶17

2

¶18

admeasuring 206.25 Sq. yds, covered by Sy.No. 684/1, Door No.7/485 situated in 7th Ward of Kodur Revenue Village and Mandal of Y.S.R.Kadapa District, in spite of the same issue covered by repeated orders of this Hon'ble Court, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and rules framed there under and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to complete registration and release the said Sale Deed forthwith and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

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 suspend the operation of Proceedings in Progs.No. Refusal No . 14/2021, dated 17.12.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to complete registration and release the Sale Deed dated 15.12.2021 executed by petitioner's vendor in favour of petitioner, pending disposal of main Writ Petition and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

¶25

The Court made the following Order:

¶26

Heard Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps for the respondents.

¶27

Being aggrieved by the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent refusing to register the sale deed dated 15.12.2021 executed in favour of the petitioner by his vendor in respect of the property covered under plot No.19 & 20, Sy.No.684/1, D.No.7/485, 7^th Ward, Kodur Revenue Village

¶28

3

¶29

and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, vide P.No.50/2021, the instant Writ Petition is filed.

¶30

It is contended by the petitioner that he has purchased the subject property for valid sale consideration from his vendor. However the respondent after completion of all formalities has refused to register the document. The reasons assigned by him are that the erstwhile composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order in CRP.No.1147 of 2012 granted injunction and since the property is covered under the said injunction orders the registration of the document was refused.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi contends that neither her vendor nor she were parties to the said CRP No.1147 of 2012 at any point of time. Thus any interim order passed in the said case would not be applicable to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.9139 of 2012, dated 02.04.2012, W.P.No.16921 of 2014 etc., prays for a direction to the authorities to verify if the petitioner was party to the said CRP and process the document and register the same in accordance with law.

¶32

Perused the record and the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of the erstwhile composite High Court and the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8708 of 2025. The orders passed in CRP No.1147 of 2012 came up for consideration in similar set of

¶33

4

¶34

circumstances before this Court. This Court directed the registering authorities to verify if the petitioners therein were parties to the CRP and if they are not parties to the CRP directed the respondents therein to process the document in accordance with law and release the same in favour of the writ petitioners therein. In the present case also the order passed in the said CRP is the subject matter of issue. Therefore placing reliance on the said orders, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as the issue involved in the present case is covered by the above referred Judgments.

¶35

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, in terms of the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos.9139 of 2012 and 16921 of 2014, directing the Registering authorities to verify if either the petitioners, or his vendor were parties to the CRP No.1147 of 2012 and if it is found that they are not parties to the CRP, the Registering authority shall process the document P.No.50/2021 and register the same in accordance with law and release the same to the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also made clear that the registration so made shall not affect the rights of the parties to the revision nor shall it create rights in favour of any person except the parties to the document.

¶36