1 APHC010301222020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 19937/2020 Between: Naina Hari Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GORLE GOPALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. TADDI SOWMYA NAIDU 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) 4. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri Gorle Gopalakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents. 2 2. Seeking cancellation of the impugned registered document No.3021/2019, dated 29.11.2019 registered on the file of the 4th respondent – Sub Registrar, Salur, Vizianagaram District, under Rule 26(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, the instant Writ Petition has been filed. 3. It is contended that certain immovable properties that were endowed in favour of one Sri S.S.Anjaneyaswamyvari Pvt. Temple, Salur, were sold by the 5th respondent vide document No.3021/2019, dated 29.11.2019, by misrepresenting that the property is their ancestral property. It is contended that no individual is entitled to exercise any ownership or title in respect of the subject properties other than the petitioner, being temple diety. Thus the instant Writ Petition has been filed seeking the cancellation of the document, said to have been executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the 3rd party. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on Rule 26(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, contends that this Court has jurisdiction to cancel the subject document, that has been fraudulently executed by the 5th respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent would contend that the petitioner has already invoked jurisdiction civil Court by filing a suit in O.S. No.5 of 2021, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge – Cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, in respect of the petition schedule property 3 and sought an ad-interim injunction against the respondents in respect of the same schedule property. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said suit was for injunction on account of the fact that pursuant to the said document of sale, the un official respondent has sought to evict the petitioner from shop, which is in possession of petitioner, in the subject area and therefore sought for an injunction. 6. Considered the rival submission. 7. This Court is of the considered view that the relief sought by the petitioner in the Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner has to avail remedies available under law. 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:27.01.2025 MVK 4 281 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No. 19937 of 2020 Date:27.01.2025 MVK