HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 31842 OF 2010. DATED ------JANUARY, 2011. BETWEEN M.Ramakrishna …Petitioner And The Union of India, rep. by its Home Secretary, New Delhi and others. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 31842 OF 2010. ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry through the third respondent into the contents of the complaint made by him to the second respondent dated 26.11.2010 and to the seventh respondent dated 23.03.2010 in relation to evasion of registration charges over impounding documents and entertaining the unregistered documents as link documents. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property by virtue of partition decree in O.S. No. 62 of 1963 dated 24.12.1969 whereunder he has succeeded to the interest of his father. It is stated that one Mr. N. Kishore Babu got executed an agreement of sale on 4.8.1973 without registration and proper stamp duty and kept the same in abeyance for twenty three years and thereafter presented for validation on 3.10.1996. As per the circulars issued by the seventh respondent, the registration authorities are restrained from validating documents, which were impounded beyond a period of one year. It is submitted that the land in question is under custodia juris of the MRO from 1971 to 1992 and there were proceedings conducted under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which ultimately ended in favour of the petitioner for delivery back to him. It is the main grievance of the petitioner that the concerned registering authorities, with oblique motive, are evading the registration charges while impounding the documents and entertaining the unregistered documents as link documents, contrary to the circular instructions issued by the 7th respondent and processing for registration even though no title was conveyed under the impounded documents. It is his further grievance that inspite of his making representations requesting respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry into the contents of the complaint made to the second respondent dated 26.11.2010 and to the seventh respondent dated 23.2.2010 through the 3rd respondent, but no steps have been taken. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has stated that entertaining of the sale deeds for registration ignoring registration fee on the impounded documents and receiving such impounded documents as link documents contrary to the circular instructions of the 7th respondent, is bad in law. Earlier, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16918 of 2010 seeking a direction to dispose of the representation dated 10.5.2010 wherein he requested the Commissioner, Registration & Stamps to set aside the gift deed vide document No. 6514 of 2007. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 16.7.2010 on the ground that the persons in whose favour validation is ordered and who are parties to the Gift Deed are not made parties to the said Writ Petition and that the Commissioner, Registration and Stamps is not conferred with the power to set aside the gift deed. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 638 of 2010, which was allowed by judgment dated 15.11.2010, directing the first respondent herein to consider the representation dated 10.05.2010 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Later, the petitioner again approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No. 7082 of 2010 seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in treating the documents issued under Section 42 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as link documents in respect of certain survey numbers as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to declare registering the alienations without having regard to the provisions of Section 17(2) and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as void. The said Writ Petition was dismissed for default. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 936 of 2010, which was allowed by judgment dated 26.11.2010 directing the second respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 23.2.2010 on merits, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said order. The said representation dated 23.02.2010 is also subject matter of the present Writ Petition. The petitioner has not made available to this Court copy of the representation dated 26.11.2010 submitted to the second respondent. The two representations dated 23.3.2010 and 15.05.2010 submitted by the petitioners are one and the same. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 15.11.2010 directed the Commissioner, Registration & Stamps, to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 10.05.2010 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. However, it is not known as to what happened to the said representation. Whether any orders have been passed or not, is not known. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 936 of 2010 by order dated 26.11.2010, directed the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 23.02.2010 on merits, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said order. The fate of the said representation is also not known. Even the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state the fate of the said representations and what happened thereafter. It is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps to get the orders of this Court implemented. Leaving the said representations to their fate, he filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct an enquiry through the third respondent into the contents of the complaint made to second respondent dated 26.11.2010 and seventh respondent dated 23.2.2010. What are the contents of the representation dated 26.11.2010 are not made available to this Court. The writ affidavit reveals that petitioner filed suit in O.S. No. 13 of 1998 on the file of the learned IV Additional District (FTC) Ranga Reddy District, in which, the documents covering the representations, are part and parcel of the suit subject land. The representation dated 23.2.2010 submitted to the second respondent is also the subject matter of Writ Appeal No.936 of 2001, wherein a direction was issued to the respondents to consider and dispose of the said representation. In view of the above, it is to be seen that it is nothing but the petitioner is filing alternate petitions one after the other, without taking appropriate steps to get the earlier orders of this Court implemented. From the above, it is clear that this Writ Petition is, nothing but, abuse of process of this Court. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------------- - JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated -------January, 2011. Msnro