IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14075 of 2009 Between: 1 Pinamatsu Raghunadha raju S/o. Late Narayana Murthy Raju R/o. MIG-264, Babumetta, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram. 2 Pusapati Satyavathi W/o. Late Venkatapathi Raju R/o. MIG-264, Babumetta, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram. 3 Penamatsu Uma Devi W/o. Buccha Venkatapathi Raju MIG-264, Babumetta, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Registrar Visakhapatnam. 2 The Sub- Registrar Bheemunipatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings vide No. Nil, dated 24-01-2009 issued by Sub-Registrar, Assurances, Bheemunipatnam as arbitrary, illegal, void and consequently direct the respondents not to register the land to an extent of Ac2.00 in old survey No. 23 new Survey No. 254 in the Village of Dakamarri of Bheemunipatnam Mandal. Counsel for the Petitioners: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.14075 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is misconceived. The petitioners submitted a representation dated 24-01-2009 to the 2nd respondent not to entertain or administer registrations in respect of an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.254 of Dakamarri, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as a ryotwari patta application in respect of the said property has been presented by them and they are in possession of the property. By the impugned communication of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd petitioner was informed that on the petitioners’ request, registration cannot be interdicted or interrupted under the provisions of the Registration Act,1908. It is this communication, which is challenged in this writ petition. The letter dated 24-01-009 addressed by the 2nd respondent to the petitioners in particular the 3rd petitioner suffers from no legal infirmity warranting interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with the appropriate law. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 28th JULY 2009 *TSNR