IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6509 of 2008 Between: 1 M/s. Chandwasia Exim Private Limited, 9-1-229, CBM Compound, Rama Talkies Junction, Visakhapatna, Rep. by its Director Ajit Kumar Minda S/o. Siva Kumar Minda, aged 32 2 Sunil Chaudari S/o.. Krishna Chaudari, Hindu No. 29/A, Sri Hariram, Goenka Street, Kolkota-2 3 M/s. A.S.L. Marketing , Rep. by its Director, Anil Gupta, S/o. Shatrugnalal Gupta, Hindu R/o.Pdlot No. 4/A, IDA, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam-44 ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Sub Registrar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Special Officer and Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam. .....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 any writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to register the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners No.2 and 3 to an extent of 1318.9 sq. yards each out of the entire land admeasuring Ac 1.09 cents each in S.No. 25 part of Gopalapatnam, VIsakhapatnam which is the subject matter of sale deed No. 3109/07 dt. 20-4-2007 and order dt. 3-7- 2006 in WP No. 8392 of 2006 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioners and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6509 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the second respondent in refusing to register the sale deeds in favour of petitioners 2 and 3 to an extent of 1318.9 sq yards each out of the entire land admeasuring Ac.1.09 cents each in Survey No. 25 (part), Gopalapatnam, Visakapatnam as illegal and arbitrary. The facts in brief leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under. The land admeasuring Ac.1.09 cents in Survey No. 25 (part), Gopalapatnam, Visakapatnam originally belongs to one Mr Datla Venkata Krishnam Raju, who has obtained a loan from Bank of India and committed default of repayment. Then the bank has initiated proceedings under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and put the subject property for public auction on 22.2.2005 and the first petitioner has purchased the same in the said public auction. However, the second respondent refused to register the sale certificate issued by the bank and directed the petitioners to obtain clearance or permission from the first respondent. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 8392 of 2006 and the same was disposed of by orders dated 3.7.2006. The operative portion of which, reads as under; “It is no doubt true that the writ petition is filed seeking a direction to fifth respndent to register the certificate of sale dated 21.3.2005 issued by fourth respondent in favour of second petitioner-company. Having regard to the orders passed by this Court on 27.4.2006, the petitioners submitted that since regular sale deed dated 5.6.2006 was executed by fourth respondent, there cannot be any objection for registering the same. Further at the instance of fourth respondent, the borrower, whose property was auctioned, approached the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Visakapatnam, to know the status of the land in survey No. 25/2, which was sought to be sold in public auction. In response thereto, the Special Officer, ULC, Visakapatnam, has addressed a letter dated 21.2.2005 to the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Visakapatnam, to theeffect that the land in survey No. 25, part of Gopalapatnam, is declared as non-surplus land by proceedings dated 8.2.2001. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, fifth respondent should take this into consideration and proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act in registering the sale deed dated 5.6.2006 submitted by the petitioners.” Pursuant to the said order, the respondents registered the sale deed dated 20.4.2007 as document no.3109 of 2007 and released the same. Now out of the total land the first petitioner intends to sell land to an extent of 1318.9 sq yards each to petitioners 2 and 3 and presented the documents to second respondent for registration, which are again refused on the same ground i.e., to produce clearance from the third respondent. Though sufficient time of more than a month is granted to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, till date he could not file counter in the matter. Today when the matter is taken up, he submitted that the petitioners have not even approached the registering authority along with the documents and on submission of the same, necessary action in the matter in accordance with law would be taken. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Both counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage. The documents filed along with the writ petition would indicate that the petitioners has purchased the necessary stamp papers and prepared the documents, as such the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner has not even approached the registering authority, cannot be accepted. Having heard both the counsel and in the circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to approach the second respondent and submit the documents for registration of the subject land. On such submission, the second respondent is directed to examine and process the same in accordance with Registration Act. If the documents so presented by the petitioners are not in order and are liable to be rejected, the second respondent shall pass appropriate speaking orders and communicate the same to the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATE: 30.4.2008 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6509 of 2008 Date: 30.4.2008