1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4245 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4245 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4245 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4258 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4258 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4258 OF 2008 Amit K. Prajapati .. Petitioner. vs. The Joint Collector of Stamps, & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. A.L. Kumar & Ambar Joshi for Petitioner. Mr. V.A. Sonpal, AGP., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. N.K. Singh i/by M.M. Vashi for Respondent Nos.5 to 7. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE: 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE: 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE: 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C. . The petitioners have filed these two petitions challenging the registration of the documents under the nomenclature ’declaration’ which has two annexures, agreement of sale and power of attorney in respect of property mentioned therein. It appears that the petitioner has an apprehension that the registration of 2 the said declaration by the Sub-Registrar the agreement of sale and power of attorney also get registered. 2. In the affidavit in reply filed by the Sub-Registrar, In-charge, Kalyan-II it has been specifically stated that the Sub-Registrar has only registered the declaration which has agreement for sale and power of attorney as annexures ’A’ and ’B’. In view of this the anxiety on the part of the petitioner appears to be misconceived. Further, the parties are agitating before the revenue authority for carrying out the necessary mutation on the basis of these documents which we are informed is already rejected by the DILR. Therefore, nothing survives in these petitions. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by any act of transfer of property, he can always seek alternative remedy before the revenue authorities or the civil court, which is more effective and efficacious than agitating the issue in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, both these petitions are dismissed. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.)