THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 4549 of 2008 Order: The petitioner claims that he had purchased various extents of land – Ac.10.00 in Sy. No. 332/1; Ac.1.00 in Sy. No. 332/2 and; Ac.3.60 cents in Sy. No. 333 of Cheepurupalli village, under registered sale deeds, and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, since the date of purchase. While so, the petitioner states that respondent No.5, namely Konaventi Kaveri Lakshmi Bai, claiming to be the GPA of one Smt. Indira Patro and another Smt. Lakshmi Marikar, approached respondent No.1, namely the Sub Registrar, Anakapalli, and presented documents for registration, alienating several extents of lands, including the land owned by him, in favour of the other unofficial respondents. It appears that before giving GPA to respondent No.5, Smt. Indira Patro and Smt. Lakshmi Marikar, filed writ petition in W.P. No. 5784 of 2007, assailing the action of the Sub-Registrar, Anakapalli, in refusing to receive the documents presented by them for registration. The said writ petition, by order dated 13.03.2007, was disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar, Anakapalli, to receive the documents presented by the petitioners, and process the same, in accordance with law, and if the respondent was of the view that the document cannot be registered, he shall state the same in an endorsement and communicate the same to the petitioners. Now it is the contention of the petitioner that on the basis of the aforesaid order in the writ petition, respondent No.1, entertained the documents presented by respondent No.5 as GPA of Smt. Indira Patro and Smt. Lakshmi Marikar, for registration, and registered the said documents, which in fact, alienated the lands owned by the petitioner without his knowledge, in favour of the other unofficial respondents, and therefore, he prayed that the documents bearing Nos. 661/2007 dated 27.11.2007 and 6748 dated 17.07.2007, executed by respondent No.5 in favour of the other official respondents, alienating the lands owned by the petitioner, be set aside, and a further direction be given to the respondents not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. He further submitted that since the impugned registrations took place on the strength of the order passed in W.P. No. 5784 of 2007, the same has to be reviewed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, is seeking the relief of cancellation of documents got registered by respondent No.5 as GPA of the petitioners in W.P. No. 5784 of 2007, in favour of other unofficial respondents, which cannot be granted. May be, respondent No.5 as GPA of her principal has got the documents registered on the strength of the orders passed therein, but that by itself cannot be a ground for this Court to order cancellation of the documents registered by respondent No.1. If respondent No.5 as GPA of her principal or her principal herself, has fraudulently or by making misrepresentation, had alienated the lands owned by the petitioner, then his remedy is to approach the competent civil Court, and seek the relief of cancellation of the documents by proving his title to the property. If the order passed in W.P. No. 5784 of 2007, had become basis for the impugned registrations, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the learned Judge who had passed the said order by way of a review petition, but certainly in the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, this Court cannot review the order passed by another learned Judge of this Court in another writ petition, for such exercise would not be in consonance with the judicial discipline. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition cannot be entertained, and the same is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to move the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA,J. Date: 1st April, 2008. KSR