IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.13678 of 2011 BETWEEN Sujatha Arts & Academics, Hyderabad and another. ... PETITIONERS AND The Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. M.A.K. MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the registration of agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney (referred to as AGAP) by respondents 4 to 21 in favour of respondents 22 and 23 under Document No.9606 of 2007 and 9602 of 2007 dated 14.07.2007. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the lawful owners, possessors and title holders of the land and that the registration of the said general power of attorney is contrary to Section 6-D of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. He further submits that since the petitioners are having title deeds and pattadar passbooks, the registering authority could not have registered the AGPA, as above, in favour of respondents 22 and 23. 3. Assuming that the contentions of the petitioners are factually correct, I am unable to see how the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked to question the registration of an agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney. If the petitioners are challenging the registration and validity of the said document, the remedy of the petitioners is elsewhere. Further, it appears to be a private title dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and respondents 4 to 23 on the other hand. The adjudication of such title dispute involving several disputed questions of fact is not within the realm of remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The writ petition, therefore, is misconceived. However, the petitioners have all the liberties to move the appropriate Court for redressal of their grievance against the impugned document including its validity and registration on the grounds permissible under law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 10, 2011 DSK