THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15924 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ/Order/Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking steps on the representation dt.20.04.2011 of the petitioner for enquiry and cancellation of Sale Deed dt.15.05.2007 brought in the name of 3rd respondent for my land by playing fraud on the department as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to enquire into the matter and take appropriate steps for cancellation of the Sale Deed fraudulently brought in the name of the 3rd respondent as per law.” In representation, dated 20.04.2011, petitioner made a request to the first respondent - Sub-Registrar, Ongole, to enquire and take steps for cancellation of sale deed, dated 15.05.2007 obtained by one Smt. Dayamma by playing fraud on the Department. In the Writ Petition, it is the allegation of the petitioner that though there are no proceedings pending before the second respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, he is interfering with her land admeasuring Acs.2.97½ cents covered by Survey Nos.496/3 and 4. When the matter came up on the last occasion, it was adjourned to this date to enable the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions on the allegation of the petitioner with regard to interference by the second respondent in regard to possession of the land as referred to above. Today, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that as there was an allegation by the third respondent that the petitioner abused her in the name of caste, an enquiry was made in that connection by the second respondent but there is no interference by the second respondent with regard to possession of the land in question. So far as the request of the petitioner made to the first respondent to take steps for cancellation of sale deed is concerned, it is beyond his jurisdiction and he cannot take steps for cancellation of alleged sale deed. If there is any fraud committed by the third respondent, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court seeking cancellation of sale deed but the first respondent is not empowered to consider the request of the petitioner as per representation, dated 20.04.2011. For the aforesaid reasons, placing on record the statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that there is no interference with regard to the land in question by the second respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to possession of the land in question either by the petitioner or by the third respondent. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th JUNE, 2011. kvni