The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition Nos.23957 & 23959 of 2010 Date: 28-09-2010 WP.No.23957/2010 Between: Sannapureddy Ramana Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and 4 others. .....Respondents WP.No.23959/2010 Between: Vennapusa Malla Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and 4 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.S.V.Bhatt Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: Common Order: Since both these Writ Petitions raise common issues of fact and law, they are being heard and disposed of together at the admission stage. I have heard Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned Counsel for the petitioners in both these Writ Petitions, and perused the record. The petitioners are intending purchasers of certain lands comprised in survey Nos.255 and 228 of Tadigotla Village, Chintakommadinne Mandal, Kadapa Sub-Division, Kadapa District. When the deeds of conveyance were presented for registration before respondent No.4 on 26-04- 2007, he appeared to have submitted his report to respondent No.3, who, in turn, has issued notices, dated 30-01-2009, calling upon the petitioners to showcause as to why the documents submitted by them shall not be returned without registration. Questioning the said notices, the present Writ Petitions have been filed. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioners made strenuous efforts to persuade this Court to hold that the objections raised by respondent No.3 in the impugned notices are wholly unsustainable, I am not inclined to adjudicate these Writ Petitions on merits for the reason that the petitioners, having failed to submit their objections to the said notices, filed the present Writ Petitions more than 1½ years after receipt thereof. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that respondent No.3 inherently lacks jurisdiction to issue the said notices. If the petitioners have valid objections to the said notices, I do not find any justification whatsoever for them not to file the same and approach this Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Writ Petitions are premature. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to submit their objections to the impugned showcause notices within a period of two weeks. On receipt of such objections, respondent No.4 shall pass appropriate orders thereon. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by such orders, they shall be free to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petitions, WPMP.Nos.30664 & 30667 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, are disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 28th September, 2010 lur