HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO. 4258 OF 2006 DATED: 6.3.2006 Between: Dr. S. Azeez … Petitioner and The Sub-Registrar, Anantapur, Represented by its Government Pleader And others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.4258 OF 2006 ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is misconceived. The petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement of sale with respondents 2 to 12 for purchase of certain land in an extent of Ac.10.00 cents in Sy.No.115-1 and 115-2 of Kakkalapally panchayat, Rudrampet village, Anantapur District. The agreement of sale is said to have been registered vide document No.11808 dated 25.5.1984 in the office of the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, the respondents 2 to 12 received the total sale consideration and executed a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) in the petitioner’s favour, authorizing him to sell the lands by dividing it into plots to his customers since he is in the business of Real Estate. The petitioner’s complaint is that the respondents 2 to 12, having received the total sale consideration and executed a GPA in his favor, are executing sale deeds favoring 3rd parties in respect of the same land. The petitioner claims to have submitted a detailed representations dated 4.1.2006 and 27.2.2006 to the 1st respondent, requesting him not to register the sale deeds presented by the respondents 2 to 12 in respect of the lands for which these respondents had executed an agreement of sale and a GPA in favour of the petitioner. The further complaint of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent had not responded to the petitioner’s representations dated 4.1.2006 and 27.2.2006. The writ petition is filed for an appropriate relief including a direction to the 1st respondent to respond to the petitioners’ representations. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition neither pleads nor is it urged or demonstrated before this court that the 1st respondent is obligated to respond to every letter written to him. It is not stated as to whether the petitioners’ representations dated 4.1.2006 and 27.2.2006 are in the nature of an appeal or a revision or a submission to the 1st respondent, requiring the 1st respondent to exercise any statutory power. The disputes between the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 12 with regard to the agreement of sale and GPA are not within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to resolve. The petitioner has failed to establish the power under which the 1st respondent is required to decline registration of any sale deeds submitted by the respondents 2 to 12 notwithstanding that the execution of such sale deeds would be in contravention of the rights of the petitioner under an earlier agreement of sale. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ------------------------------- GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 6.3.2006 cvm