THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17477 of 2010 Dated 14th February, 2011 Between: Mupalla Bala Krishna …Petitioner And The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.V.Anil Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 8: AGP for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.7 : Sri V.T.M.Prasad The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.7 in issuing letter, dated 12.04.2010, requesting respondent No.2 not to entertain any registration respect of land in Survey No.249/2B of Nemalipuri Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential relief to set aside the said letter. I have heard Sri V.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, representing respondent No.7. The petitioner has purchased agricultural land admeasuring Acs.5.00 in Survey No.249/2B of Nemalipuri Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District, from one person, by name, Narayanam Seshu Babu, s/o Narayanam Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy, under a registered sale deed, dated 02.03.2010, for consideration of Rs.3,60,000/-. Respondent No.7 addressed a letter, dated 12.04.2010, to the Sub-Registrar, Piduguralla, Guntur District, wherein the said respondent has included the land admeasuring Acs.19.74 cents, including the land which the petitioner is stated to have purchased in Survey No.249/2B, in the list of the lands stated to have been belonging to the Endowments Department, with a request not to entertain registration. The petitioner has also questioned proceedings, dated 23.04.2010, of respondent No.6, whereby he has requested respondent No.2 to consider cancellation of the registered document held by the petitioner. In my opinion, these two proceedings are in the nature of internal correspondence between respondent Nos.6 and 7 on the one side and respondent No.2 on the other, and if respondent No.2 has taken any decision on these proceedings, that would give rise to a cause of action to the petitioner to avail his remedies. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that acting on the said proceedings, respondent No.2 has taken any action either for cancellation of the registered sale deed held by him or returned the documents presented by him for registration. As and when such consequential steps are taken by respondent No.2, the petitioner would be entitled to question such action on the part of respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, I do not find any necessity for the petitioner to pursue this writ petition at this stage, as the writ petition is devoid of cause of action. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies in the event any adverse action is taken by respondent No.2 in pursuance of the impugned proceedings. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 21.07.2010, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.22058 of 2010, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.Nos.22057, 22058 and 28125 of 2010, and W.V.M.P.No.3465 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th February, 2011 VGB