APHC010377052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19275/2025 Between: 1. KOTHAPALLI VENKATA REDDY,, S/O. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. 2. K. GANGI REDDY,, S/O. K. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. K. RAMESH REDDY,, S/O. K. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 4. K. SUDHAKAR REDDY,, S/O. K. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. ALL ARE R/O. PENUBOLU VILLAGE, RAMAGIRI MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, PUTTAPARTI, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, CHENNEKOTHAPALLI, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 4. KOTHAPALLI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O. LATE K. PAREMESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 2 5. KOTHAPALLI NARAYANA REDDY, S/O. LATE K. PAREMESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 6. K PAPI REDDY, S/O. LATE K. PAREMESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 7. K SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O. LATE K. PAREMESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 8. YEJJE SREERAMULU, S/O. LAKSHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 9. BUTRA RAMANJINEYULU, S/O. DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 10. KUMARA SREERAMULU, S/O. KONDANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 11. GOSE NAGALAKMAMMA, W/O. KATAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 12. CHITRA PARVATAMMA, W/O. KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 13. CHITRA KANTHAMMA, W/O. VARADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 14. NAGASAMUDRAM POTHALAIAH, S/O. LINGAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 15. BALAGONDA SIVAIAH, S/O. BODA MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 16. ACHAMPALLI ANJINAMMA, W/O. VENKATARAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 17. KUMMARA SURESH, S/O. NALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 18. KUMMARA NAGASAMUDRAM MOHANA, S/O. LINGAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 19. KUMMARA OBILESU, S/O. HANUMANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 20. BALAGONDA GANGANNA, S/O. BODA MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 3 21. CHITRA KONDAIAH, S/O. VARADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 22. YEJJE ANJINEYULU, S/O. KURIPANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. ALL THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO 22 ARE R/O. PENUBOLU VILLAGE, RAMAGIRI MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no. 2 and 3 to consider the notice dt.10.02.2024 Issued by the petitioners before entertaining the document presented by the respondent no. 4 to 22 in respect of the land being an extent Ac. 13.39 cents in Sy.No.275 situated at Ganthimarri Revenue Village, Ramagiri Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 and 3 to consider the notice dt.10.02.2024 Issued made by the petitioners before entertaining the document presented by the respondent no. 4 to 22 or any third parties in respect of the land being an extent Ac. 13.39 cents in Sy.No.275 situated at Ganthimarri Revenue Village, Ramagiri Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District pending disposal pending disposal of the writ petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. R SUJAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri R.Sujan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.V.Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3. 4 2. The notice in respect of the respondents 4 to 22 is dispensed with since no adverse order is passed affecting the interest of the respondents 4 to 22. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners filed O.S.No.28 of 2017 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram, against the unofficial respondents seeking partition and separate possession of the properties. Petitioners filed I.A.No.26 of 2017 seeking a temporary injunction, and the same was dismissed on 02.05.2018, and it became final. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners issued a legal notice dated 10.02.2024 (Ex.P1) to the 3rd respondent not to entertain any documents concerning the scheduled properties in O.S.No.28 of 2017, and hence, filed this writ petition. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the petitioners, having been unsuccessful in getting an injunction, issued a legal notice to the 3rd respondent dated 10.02.2024 (Ex.P1). Unless and until a restraint order is passed by the Competent Civil Judge or the properties are included in the list of Prohibited properties under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, if any document is presented before the authority, the authority shall receive the same and process the same. 5. Consideration: As seen from the averments in the affidavit, the petitioners filed O.S.No.28 of 2017 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram, seeking partition. The petitioners also filed I.A.No.26 of 2017 for the grant of temporary injunction, and the same was dismissed on 02.05.2018. 6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, unless, a restraint order is passed by the Competent Civil Judge, restraining the Sub-Registrar from registering the documents or the properties are in the list of the prohibitory properties under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, the Sub-Registrar has to receive the process the document whenever a 5 document is presented. The legal notice issued on behalf of the petitioners, dated 10.02.2024 (Ex.P1), will not impede the 3rd respondent from entertaining the documents. The Sub-Registrar must follow the procedure mandated under the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules made thereunder. 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 29.07.2025 SNI 6 247 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.19275 OF 2025 Dated: 29.07.2025 SNI