IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No: 16051 of 2008 Between: Bodepalli Venkata Ramana S/o. B.Prasad Rao Plot No. 23, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam -13, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Sub-Registrar, Anakapally, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Tahsidar, Paruvada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5 Kolaventi Kaveri Lakshmi Bai W/o. Sunder Rao H.No. 50-50-33/2, Balaiah Shastri Layout, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. G.P.A.Holder of Smt. Indira Patro, W/o. P.C.Patro and Lakshmi Marikar, W/o. Shamsuddin Marikar. 6. Manthena Sunil Varma S/o. M.Suryanarayana Raju D.No. 50-116-15, Seethammadhara North Extension, Visakhapatnam. 7. Kothapalli Venkata Satya Anjaneya Varma S/o. K.Ramakrishna Raju D.No. 65-1-190 A, Srinivasa Nagar, Visakhapatnam. 8. M/s. Kantamanneni Properties Pvt. Ltd., Flat No. 303, Kavya Pujitha Estates, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director, Kanthamanneni Satyamarayana, S/o. Sri Balakrishna Flat No. 303, Kavya Flats, Pujitha Estates, Hyderabad. 9. Bondi Nuka Raju S/o. Pittalodu R/o. Mutyalampalem, Cheepurupalli East, Paruvada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 review the orders issued in W.P.No.5784/2007 dated 30.03.2007 and to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus calling for records leading to the registration of documents No.661/07 dated 28-11-2007 in favour of Manteena Sunil Varma and Kothapalli Venkata Satya Anjaneya Varma nad Document No. 6748/2007 dated 17-7-2007 in favour of M/s Kantamneni Properties Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad from Sub- Registrar, the Respondent No.1 and set aside the same as illegal and fraudulent the transaction with a further direction to the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in Survey No.332/1 Ac. 9.00 and 332/3 Ac.2.00 and Survey No.333 part Ac.3.60 cents owned by the petitioner in Cheepurupalli East Village, Paruvada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RAMABRAHMAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} O R D E R:- This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a mandamus to declare the document No.661/2007, dated 28.11.2007 in favour of Manteena Sunil Varma and Kothapalli Venkata Satya Anjaneya Varma and Document No.6748 of 2007 dated 17.7.2007 in favour of M/s.Kantamneni Properties Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad issued by the 1st respondent-Sub-Registrar, as illegal and fraudulent transaction, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.9.00 cents of land in S.No.332/1, Ac.2.00 cents in S.No.332/3 and Ac.3.60 cents in S.No.333 Part owned by the petitioner in Cheepurupalli East Village, Paruvada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the material placed on record. The petitioner, earlier, ﬁled W.P.No.4549 of 2008, seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus calling for records leading to the Registration of Document No.661/2007, dated 28.11.2007 in favour of Manteena Sunil Varma and Kothapalli Venkata Satya Anjaneya Varma and Document No.6748/2007, dated 17.7.2007 in favour of M/s.Kantamneni Properties Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad from Sub- Registrar, the 1st respondent, and set aside the same as illegal and fraudulent transaction, with a further direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in S.Nos.332/1, Ac.9.00 cents and S.No.332/3, Ac.2.00 cents and S.No.333 Part, Ac.3.60 cents owned by the petitioner in Cheepurupalli East Vilalge, Paruvadda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.” This Court, by its order dated 1.4.2008, disposed of the writ petition in the following manner: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, is seeking the relief of cancellation of documents got registered by respondent No.6 as G.P.A. of the petitioners in W.P.No.5784 of 2007, in favour of other unoﬃcial respondents, which cannot be granted. Maybe, respondent No.5 as GPA of her principal has got the documents registered on the strength of the orders passed therein, but that by itself cannot be a ground for this Court to order cancellation of the documents registered by respondent No.1. If respondent No.5 as GPA of her principal or her principal herself, has fraudulently or by making misrepresentation, had alienated the lands owned by the petitioner, then his remedy is to approach the competent civil Court, and seek the relief of cancellation of the documents by proving his title to the property, if the order passed in W.P. No.5784 of 2007, had become basis for the impugned registrations, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the learned Judge who had passed the said order by way of a review petition, but certainly in the present writ petition ﬁled by the petitioner, this Court cannot review the order passed by another learned Judge of this Court in another writ petition, for such exercise would not be in consonance with the judicial discipline”. For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to move the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. No costs.” The petitioner instead of ﬁling review petition, as directed in the above said order, has once again ﬁled the present writ petition, seeking the very same relief, which this Court refused to grant. The writ petition is misconceived, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA, J 22nd August, 2008 bcj