IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 4948 of 2009 Between: 1 Annapaneni Dharma Rao S/o.Suryanarayana R/o.Plot No.136, Visalakshi Nagar Visakhapatnam 2 Smt.Dandamudi A Sujatha W/o.Dharma Rao R/o.Plot No.136, Visalakshi Nagar Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the District Registrar Registration and Stamps Department, Visakhapatnam 2 The Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in not receiving and registering the lease deed presented by the petitioners in respect of the land in Survey Nos.274/18 and 22 283/4 and 6 of Kapulappada village, of Bheemunipatnam Mandal Visakhapatnam District admeasuring Ac.2.05 cents on the ground of pendency of ACB Case No.8 of 2008 against the first petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of Stamps and Registration Act and issue a consequential direction directing the second respondent to forthwith receive and register the lease deed without reference to pendency of ACB case No. 8 of 2008. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4948 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are owners of an extent of Ac.2.05 cents in Sy.No.274/18 and 22 and 283/4 and 6 of Kapuluppadu village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. They presented a lease deed in respect of the said property for registration before the 2nd respondent. The document is not being received and registered by the 2nd respondent, on the instructions received by the District Collector to the effect that ACB Case No.8 of 2008 is pending against the 1st petitioner. This writ petition is filed for a direction to the 2nd respondent to receive and register the document. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. At the stage of admission itself, the learned Government Pleader has produced before this Court, a copy of the letter dated 23.01.2009 addressed by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam to the District Registrar. It is to the effect that an ACB case is pending against the 1st petitioner and the property in question was purchased by him through corrupt practices. Even assuming that there is a semblance of truth in whatever is stated by the District Collector, a mere grant of lease would not alter the title in the property. In the event of the property being identified as the one acquired through corrupt practices, it can be recovered even from the lessee. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to process the document presented by the petitioners in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the fact that ACB case is pending against the 1st petitioner. It is made clear that the lease deed, if released, would not alter the character or nature of the property and would not have any bearing upon the proceedings that are pending against the 1st petitioner. No costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 13.03.2009 v v