IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 15732 of 2001 Between: S.Surya Rao, S/o.Ch.Appa Rao, Sri Kanaka Durga Devasthanam, Vijayawada, R/o.Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Officer, Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamyvari Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Gipalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Revenue Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not receiving, registering and releasing the sale deed documents for the land belonging to the petitioner to an extent of 105.77 sq.yards in Sy.No.278/1B, situated at Adavivaram Village, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Stamps and Registration Act; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VIDYASAGAR MAREPPA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.ADINARAYANA RAJU The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.15732 OF 2001 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner challenges the action of the Sub-Registrar, Gopalapatnam,Visakhapatnam, the second respondent herein, in not receiving, registering and releasing the sale document pertaining to the land admeasuring 105.77 square yards in Survey No.275/1B at Adavivaram Village, Visakhapatnam District. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the subject land having purchased it under registered sale deed bearing document No.1473/98 dated 08.05.1998 from one Sri P.C.Kondala Rao who, in turn, had purchased it from Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamyvari Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam, the ﬁrst respondent herein, under registered sale deed bearing No.122/98. The petitioner also stated that the Government had permitted the ﬁrst respondent to sell 8 acres of land in Survey No.275 of Adavivaram Village to Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Employees Co-operative House Building Society vide G.O.Ms.No.104 dated 25.01.1983 and the petitioner claims title through the said Society. It is his grievance that when he tried to sell away the subject land, the second respondent refused to receive the document for registration on the ground that there was a prohibition with regard to alienation of lands belonging to the ﬁrst respondent- Devasthanam. Accordingly, he approached this court seeking a direction to the Registering Authority to receive and register the sale deed. This Court, by interim order dated 01.08.2001, directed the second respondent to register and release the document in question subject to the result of the writ petition. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the Executive Oﬃcer of the ﬁrst respondent-Devasthanam admitting that the Government had permitted it to sell an extent of 8 acres of land in Survey No.275/1B of Adavivaram Village in favour of Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Simhachalam, for construction of houses. The ﬁrst respondent executed a registered sale deed in this regard being document No.66/97. It is also admitted that the petitioner claims title to the subject land admeasuring 105.77 square yards having purchased it from the allottee of the said Society. It is speciﬁcally stated in the counter aﬃdavit that as the subject plot was sold by the ﬁrst respondent- Devasthanam to the Society and as the petitioner claims title thereto, being a subsequent holder of title, the Devasthanam did not have any objection to the transaction. In the light of the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent-Devasthanam, it is clear that the action of the second respondent in not receiving and registering the document presented by the petitioner is not sustainable in law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to receive, register and release the document presented by the petitioner, if not already done in pursuance of the interim order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J. 12th November, 2008. VGSR