IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19064 of 2010 Between: Vemula Venkata Reddy & others. ..... Petitioners AND The District Registrar of Assurances, Warangal, Warangal District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19064 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 23.07.2010 issued by respondent No.2. The petitioners claim that they are the legitimate owners of certain lands admeasuring Ac.2.32 guntas comprised in Sy.Nos.94, 94/A1, 94/A2, 94/A3, 94/A4 and 94/B of Gopalapuram village, Hanamakonda Mandal, Warangal District. The petitioners pleaded that respondent No.4 is seeking to alienate the said land. On coming to know about the same, the petitioners made a representation to respondent No.2, who, by the impugned order, informed the former that there is no provision under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, “the Act”) or the Rules made thereunder to stop the registration. At the hearing, Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that since there is title dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.4, respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to register the lands. In my opinion, the above contention of the learned counsel has no merit because under the provisions of the Act, respondent No.2 is not charged with the obligation of examining the title in respect of the property for which registration is sought. If the petitioners assert their title, they can only approach the competent civil Court for claming appropriate relief. Unless an order of the competent civil Court restrains respondent No.4 from alienating the property, respondent No.2 cannot be directed to refuse registration. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.24102 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.10.2010 ES