IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6134 OF 2025 Between: 1. Shaik Jaheerabbas, S/o Dadapeer, aged 55 years. Resident of D.No.3/104, Kotha Bazar Street, Kodur Village and Post, Kodur Mandal Annamayya District. 2. Shaik Basheer, S/o Dadapper, aged 41 years. Resident of D.No.3/104, Kotha Bazar Street, Kodur Village and Post, Kodur Mandal Annamayya District. 3. Kandula Jangamaiahgari Pedda Reddaiah, S/o Late Subbarayalu Chowdary, aged 59 years, K.Kandulavaripalli Village and Post, Chitvel Mandal, Annamayya District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Revenue Department)Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, At Amaravati. 2. The District Registrar, Rayachoti, Annamayya District. 3. The Sub Registrar, Pullampet, Annamayya District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or an order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring order of Refusal in proceedings No Refusal No. 1/2025 dated 03.03.2025 issued by , more <5* thereby refusing to register document of Sale Deed pending document vide the 3rd respondent dated 27.02.2025 and keeping the same P.No. 1/2025 dated 27.02.2025, in respect of the property admeasuring No.684/1 of Kodur Revenue Village and as 311.66 square yards, in survey District, covered by a residential building Post, Kodur Mandal, Annamayya with plinth area of 1760 square feets, inspite of the same issue covered by repeated orders of this Hon'ble Court as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Registration rules framed there under and offends Article 14 and 21 of of Act, 1908 and Constitution register and release the said Sale Deed forthwith. of India and consequently to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent 2 and 3 to register and the Sale Deed Document P.No.1/2025 dated 27.02.2025 executed release in favour of the 3rd petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010121102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) • I [3329] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6134/2025 Between: Shaik Jaheerabbas and Others ...PETITIONER{S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION.N0.6134 OF 2025 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following relief:- “to issue a Writ or an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring order of Refusal in proceedings No: Refusal No. 1/2025 dated 03.03.2025 issued by the 3^^ respondent thereby refusing to register document of Sale Deed dated 27.02.2025 and keeping the same as pending document vide P. No. 1/2025 dated 27.02.2025 in respect of the property admeasuring 311.66 square yards, in survey No. 684/1 of Kodur Revenue Village and Post.Kodur Mandat, Annamayya District covered by a residential building with plinth area of 1760 square feets, inspite of the same issue covered by repeated orders of this Hon’ble Court as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and rules framed there under and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to register and release the said Sale Deed forthwith and to pass such other order or orders...” Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.20032 of 2022 and requested to pass a similar order in this writ petition also. For better understanding the operative portion of the said order reads as 2. 3. 4. follows; “...It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the petitioner nor her vendor is a party to the proceedings in CRP No.1147 of 2012. Co-ordinate bench of this t Court in Writ Petition Nos. 9139 of 2012 and 16921 of 2014 vide orders dated 02.04.2012 and 20.06.2014, while placing reliance on the orders in W.P.No.11560 of 2011, allowed the writ petitions directing the registering authorities to process the document in accordance with law, in case the petitioner or his vendor or his vendor’s vendor are not parties to the order in CRP No.1147 of 2012. The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 9139 of 2012 and 16921 of 2014 and hence similar orders passed therein can be passed in this writ petition. In the above view of the matter, in view of the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 9139 of 2012 and 16921 of 2014, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the Registering authorities to find out whether the petitioner, or her vendor are parties to the order in CRP No.1147 of 2012 and in case they are not parties, the Registering authority shall process the document in accordance with law and release the same to the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also made clear that the registration so made shall not affect the rights of the parties to the revision nor shall it create rights in favour of any person except the parties to the document. There shall be no order as to costs " The same is not disputed by learned Government Pleader appearing for 5. the respondents. In view of the same, let there be a similar order in this case, following 6. the identical lines as in Writ Petition No.20032 of 2022, dated 21.11.2024. Having regard to the submission made by both the learned counsel, in of the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 9139 of 2012 and 16921 of 2014, the present writ petition is disposed of, directing the Registering 7. view authorities to find out whether the petitioners, or their vendor are parties to the order in CRP No.1147 of 2012 and in case they are not parties, the Registering authority shall process the document in accordance with law and release the same to the petitioners, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also made clear that the registration so made shall not affect the rights of the parties to the revision nor shall it create rights in favour of any person except the parties to the document. 8. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.20032 of 2022 and batch dated 21.11.2024, to this order. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, (Revenue Department) Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, At Amaravati. 2. The District Registrar, Rayachoti, Annamayya District. 3. The Sub Registrar, Pullampet, Annamayya District. 4. One CC to Sri Balaji Medamalli Advocate [OPUC] Registration and Stamps, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies TF(Along with a copy of order dt. 21.11.2024 in WP No. 20032 of 2022) ■? HIGH COURT DATED:11/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.6134 of 2025 S’ 25 MAR 2025 § Current Secuon DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS <RCJ % U^.tp.^o.20032 of 2022 1 APHC010332752022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20032/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER Thuraka Madhavi AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.BALAJI MEDAMALLl Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER The challenge laid in this writ petition is to the proceedings in Progs. No.Refusal No.06/2022, dated 18.04.2022 issued by respondent no.3 refusing sale deed dated 28.03.2022 executed in favour of the to register the petitioner by his vendor on the ground that the subject property is covered by > <RCJ T^.(P.3Vo.20032 of2022 2 the stay orders of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CRMP No. 1546 of 2012 in CRP No.1147 of 2012. 2. Heard Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ petition, further contended that neither the petitioner nor her vendor is party to the CRP No.1147 of 2012 on the file of this Court and therefore the orders passed in the said Revision does not bind them and hence the ground on which the registering authority refused to register the document is untenable. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Sri Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, justified the action of the registering authority in refusing to register the document. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. Vide impugned proceedings, registration of the sale deed dated 28.03.2022 executed in favour of the petitioner by her vendor was refused. The reasons for refusal are as follows: W.<P.7^o.20032 of2022 3 "The document styled as Sale deed executed by Gagguturi Khader Basha, son of Gagguturi Pedda Raja Saheb, D.No.7/650, of Jagadampalli, Kodur village and post, Kadapa District in favour of Thuraka Madhavi, W/o Vijay Kumar of Siddareddipalli village, Chitvel Mandal, Kadapa District comprising 550 sq.yards in Sy.No.684/1 of Kodur village of Kodur Mandal of Kadapa District for a valuable consideration of Rs. 19,80,000/- was presented for Registration on 28.03.2022 and it has been kept pending as P.No.36/2022 for the reason that the property is covered by the stay orders of the Honorable A.P. High Court in CRPMP No.l546 of 2012 in GRP No.ll47 of 2012. Hence registration of the document is refused as per S.0.219 of A.P.Registration manual Part-II as amended by G.O.Ms.No.620, Revenue (Regn-I) Department dated 07.04.2023." 7. It is a well established principle of law that an order of injunction passed in a suit would operate only against the parties to it. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No. 11560 of 2011 held as follows: "An order of injunction passed in a suit would operate only against the parties to it. Howsoever proximate or remote, a person may be connected to a party to proceedings before a Court, an order passed therein does not bind him, unless he is a party thereto." 8. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the petitioner nor her vendor is a party to the proceedings in CRP No.1147 of 2012. Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.9139 of 2012 and 16921 of 2014 vide orders dated 02.04.2012 and 20.06.2014, while placing reliance on the orders in W.P.No.11560 of 2011, allowed the writ petitions directing the registering authorities to process the document in accordance with law, in case the petitioner or his vendor or his vendor's vendor are not parties to the order in CRP No. 1147 of 2012. The issue % <RCJ '.W(PMo.20032of2022 4 involved in this case is squarely covered by the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 9139 of 2012 and 16921 of 2014 and hence similar orders passed therein can be passed in this writ petition. 9. In the above view of the matter, in view of the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 9139 of 2012 and 16921 of 2014, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the Registering authorities to find out whether the petitioner her vendor are parties to the order in CRP No. 1147 of 2012 and in case they are not parties, the Registering authority shall process the document in accordance with law and release the same to the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also made clear that the registration so made shall not affect the rights of the parties to the revision nor shall it create rights in favour of any person except the parties to the document. There shall be no order as to costs. , or Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR