THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9363 OF 2010 DATED:10.06.2010 Between: Baddi Subba Rao and others .. Petitioners And The Tahsildar, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9363 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners filed the instant writ petition challenging the letter of the second respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Kakinada, addressed to respondent No.19, namely, the Sub Registrar, Prathipadu. By the said letter, the RDO informed the Sub Registrar that the Government has no objection for sale transaction by Koyya Veerraju and Koyya Vasantha Rao – respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein. The petitioners, who are nine in number, allege that the land admeasuring Acs.85.58 cents in Kodavali Village was owned by the Zamindar. He alienated the land in favour of Kirlampudi Sugarcane Farms Limited under a registered sale deed, dated 27.02.1947. The Kirlampudi Sugars opted for voluntary liquidation. The Official Liquidator (OL) sold the entire land of Acs.85.58 cents under five registered sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.7 and 8, the petitioners and others. Be it noted, respondent No.8 is none other than the brother-in-law of the first petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioners that Koyya Chellaiah (father-in-law of the first petitioner), one of the alienees was managing the entire property. After his death, respondent Nos.7 and 8 managed the property under five sale deeds. The petitioners assert that as the property was purchased under five sale deeds jointly, all of them have a share to the extent of 1/25th or 1/175th. When the land admeasuring Acs.11.53 cents was acquired, compensation was also allegedly paid to the petitioners. Land admeasuring Acs.7.00 in Survey No.119 was also acquired for Pushkara Lift Irrigation Scheme and India Sugar Left Main Canal. The compensation was also paid to all the petitioners. The petitioners are allegedly in joint possession of the balance of land admeasuring Acs.42.13 cents. Even though all of them were shareholders, respondent Nos.7 and 8 obtained orders in W.P.No.3039 of 1989 for mutation of their names in the revenue records. After obtaining mutation, respondent Nos.7 and 8 are making attempts to alienate the area covered by the tank to third parties. They approached respondent No.19 for registration. When the Tahsildar reported the matter to the second respondent, he issued No Objection Certificate (NOC) for enabling respondent No.19 to register the sale transactions entered into by respondent Nos.7 and 8 with the third parties. The counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not competent to the RDO to decide the question of title and issue a letter to the Sub Registrar, which has effect of conferring title on respondent Nos.7 and 8. He vehemently contends that as the property was purchased jointly from Kirlampudi Sugars under five sale deeds, all the petitioners herein who have a share in the property and respondent Nos.7 and 8 cannot be permitted to sell the property. A perusal of the affidavit would reveal that the petitioners are disputing the exclusive right, title and interest of respondent Nos.7 and 8 to alienate the property admeasuring Acs.42.13 cents in Survey No.175/1. In view of this, a Writ Petition is not proper remedy. They can approach the civil Court and seek redressal. Insofar as the impugned letter is concerned by issuing NOC, the Revenue Divisional Officer, in the considered opinion of this Court; is not deciding the title. A perusal of the impugned letter would show that the said letter was issued based on pattedar pass books obtained by respondent Nos.7 and 8 and the revenue entries made therein. Therefore, if the petitioners dispute the title of respondent Nos.7 and 8 to alienate the property, in addition to filing a suit and obtaining injunction against them, it is also open to the petitioners to raise objections before the Sub Registrar. When the objections are filed, it is needless to mention that under Rule 58 of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under Registration Act, 1908, the registering authority has to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. The Writ Petition as such is not maintainable. The Writ Petition, subject to the above observation, is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 10.06.2010 KH