THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.27876 of 2010 DT.10.11.2010 Between: N.Laxman … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Inspector General, Stamps and Registration Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in initiating action against respondent No.4 for presenting a gift deed for registration and getting the same registered on the basis of a fabricated document, namely, purported tax receipt of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to order notice on respondent Nos.4 to 7. To put it briefly, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has fabricated a tax receipt purported to have been issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and she along with respondent Nos.5 and 6 executed a gift deed and got it registered in the name of respondent No.7. The petitioner is stated to have made representations on 24.05.2009 and 04.09.2010 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to initiate action for prosecution of respondent Nos.4 to 7 under Section 82 r/w Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). The grievance of the petitioner is that no action is being taken on the said representations. Under Section 82 of the Act, whoever inter alia intentionally delivers to a Registering Officer, in any proceeding under Section 19 or Section 21, a false copy or translation of a document, or a false copy of a map or plan etc., shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine, or with both. Under Section 83 of the Act, on such acts coming to the knowledge of the Registering Officer in his official capacity, he may commence prosecution with the permission of the Inspector General, the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar, in whose territories, district or sub-district, as the case may be, the offence has been committed. If the contents of the representations said to have been made by the petitioners are true, prima facie, the act complained of by the petitioner falls under Section 82 of the Act. Having received the representations from the petitioner, it is incumbent upon respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider and take a decision thereon. As the grievance of the petitioner to the extent of inaction on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in this regard appears to be justifiable, the writ petition is disposed of, without expressing any opinion on the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent Nos.4 to 7, with a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the petitioner’s representations and take appropriate decision in terms of Sections 82 and 83 of the Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35552 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 10.11.2010 VGB