IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 W.P.No.2141 of 2010 Between: Kondepudi Veerabrahmam ... PETITIONER(S) and The Govt. of A.P. represented by Principal Secretary to Govt. Revenue Department, Hyderabad and two others …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.2141 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner claims to have purchased a plot of land to an extent of 216 Sq. Yards in R.S.No.63, Plot No.147 of Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada Urban Mandal, Krishna District, from a member of M/s.Mohammedia Cooperative Building Society Limited. It is stated that the said Society acquired that land through a registered document no.384/1985 from the A.P. Wakf Board and others. Now, he wanted to sell that property in favour of Smt Mukku Tirupathamma. Accordingly, a sale deed is said to have been executed on 04.10.2006 and was presented on 18.01.2006 for registration before the 3rd respondent. On the basis of a memo dated 23.10.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent refused to register the document. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The 3rd respondent did not pass any order expressing the view on the document presented by the petitioner for registration. However, his refusal to register the document is said to be on the basis of the memo dated 23.10.2008. The 2nd respondent made a reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP © No.14168 of 2007 and directed that the registering authority shall not entertain any transaction in respect of the area which is the subject matter of the SLP till receipt of the orders from the Government. This is not referable to any provision of law. A perusal of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court discloses that a direction was issued to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to cause inquiry into the entire affairs of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board and others vis-à-vis the transactions in respect of that land after issuing notice to the concerned parties. Action was directed to be taken against the persons who are found to be guilty. It is not evident as to whether any steps were taken in pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court much less the petitioner or the vendors are found guilty. Unless such proceedings exist, the right of the petitioner to transfer the land cannot be denied. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the 3rd respondent to process the sale deed presented by the petitioner and take necessary steps in accordance with law. It is made clear that unless any prohibition contained in law exists, the right of the petitioner cannot be interdicted. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 9th February 2010 CVRK