IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7931 of 2005 Between: Kolagani Rathamma, W/o. Late Sambaiah, Varalashettivaripalem, Bapatla-522 101, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Sub-Registrar (Registration), Bapatla, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.THIMOTHI Counsel for the Respondent: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard Sri B.Thimothi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent. In her affidavit, the petitioner averred that an extent of Acs.3.92 cents in Survey No.413-10/2 of Baptla Village and Mandal, Guntur District, which is a Government land, is in the occupation of her family right from the time of her forefathers; that recently some antisocial elements have been trying to get the said property registered and that when she came to know that an extent of Ac.0.20 cents was got registered, she approached the respondent with a request to cancel the said registration as the same was done illegally. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of her representation made on 22-02-2005, the respondent has not cancelled the said registration. No counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that on the petitioner’s own showing, she is in unauthorized occupation of the Government land and she failed to give material particulars pertaining to the alleged illegal registration and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed both on the ground of the petitioner not having locus standi and also of vagueness. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioner is herself in unauthorized occupation of Government land. In order to seek a writ of Mandamus, it is not merely suﬃcient for the petitioner to show that the respondent has not been carrying out his statutory duties but also that such a failure resulted in infringement of any of her legal rights. Unless the petitioner has got her title over the land declared by a competent Court of law on the ground of long and uninterrupted possession by establishing factum of “animus possidendi” to hold the land adverse to the interests of the State, she cannot claim to have any right over the property merely on account of her alleged long standing possession. As the petitioner has not so far got her title declared, in my considered view, she has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition. Further, the petitioner failed to give the names of the persons who got the extent of Ac.0.20 cents registered and the date on which the registration was done. The petitioner also failed to make the said persons parties to this writ petition. In the absence of those persons being made parties, no relief can be granted against them. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the respondent before registering the property shall obtain necessary information as to whether the property for which the transaction sought to be registered is Government property or not. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.10541 of 2005 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 31st July, 2008 vrn