APHC010424772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 7r ,'y MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO , WRIT PETITION NO: 21759 OF 7()9R ■ t Ji- .U I v-^ y'' .y v.?' c /■ Between: Nallamilli Bheemeswara Reddy, S/o Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 52 years, R/o NSN rice Industry, Chollangi, Kakinada, Kakinada District (Erstwhile East Godavari District) Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Stamps Registration Department Secretariat, Tulluru, Velagapudi, District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar Rajahmundry Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Sub Registrar, Peddapuram, Peddapuram Mandal District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. Sri Valluri Satyanarayana, S/o Ramulu, Aged 55 years Pedapudi Mandal, Kakinada District Guntur Kakinada R/o D. no. 3-4, Andhra Peddada Village Pradesh. 5. Sri Chundru Sriharirao, S/o Venkanna, Aged 75 years, Occ Business, R/o D. No. 69-4-23, Sarpavaram, Kakinada, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh. 6. Sri Venna Vijaya Chakravarthi S/o Late Satyanarayana Aged 54 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.Main Road, Peddapuram, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents 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 an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official Respondents, particularly the 3rd Respondent Sub-Registrar, in arbitrarily withholding the registration of the plots lawfully purchased by the Petitioner in a public auction conducted by Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India), solely on the basis of unsubstantiated and extraneous claims made by Respondents 4 to 6 - arising out of execution proceedings in a civil suit against the original vendor Sri Karri Venkata Krishna Reddy, despite the auctioned property bearing no nexus or legal connection to such proceedings without conducting any inquiry, without drawing a panchanama. and without ascertaining the factual and legal position, as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, devoid of jurisdiction, and in violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and also in contravention of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and rules framed there under and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to forthwith proceed 17 with the registration of the sale deeds pertaining to the said plots in favour of the Petitioner in accordance with law and issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of case. lA 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 direct the 3rd Respondent herein not to withhold and to forthwith effect the registration in respect of the Petitioner’s property admeasuring Ac. to process and 34.00 situated in Survey No. 2-8-39 covered by L.P. Peddapuram, already registered in favour of the Petitioner under Document Nos. 344, 3445, 3446 and 235 of 2009, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition. No. 58 of 2009, Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 6: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following order: APHC010424772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21759 of 2025 Between: 1.NALLAMILLI BHEEMESWARA REDDY, S/0 SATYANARAYANA REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS. R/0 NSN RICE INDUSTRY, CHOLLANGI, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL STAMPS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TULLURU, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT 2.THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR RAJAHMUNDRY, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE SUBREGISTRAR, PEDDAPURAM, PEDDAPURAM MANUAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4.SRI VALLURI SATYANARAYANA, S/0 RAMULU, AGED 55 YEARS, R/0 D. NO. 3-4, PEDDADA VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANUAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5.SRI CHUNDRU SRIHARIRAO, S/0 VENKANNA, AGED 75 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0 D. NO. 69-4-23, SARPAVARAM, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. SRI VENNA VIJAYA CHAKRAVARTHI, S/O.LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGE 54 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O.MAIN ROAD, PEDDAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 2 % may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official Respondents, particularly the 3rd Respondent Sub-Registrar, in arbitrarily withholding the registration of the plots lawfully purchased by the Petitioner in a public auction conducted by Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India), solely on the basis of unsubstantiated and extraneous claims made by Respondents 4 to 6 - arising out of execution proceedings in a civil suit against the original vendor Sri Karri Venkata Krishna Reddy, despite the auctioned property bearing no nexus or legal connection to such proceedings without conducting any inquiry, without drawing a panchanama. and without ascertaining the factual and legal position, as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, devoid of jurisdiction, and in violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and also in contravention of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and rules framed thereunder and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to forthwith proceed 17 - with the registration of the sale deeds pertaining to the said plots in favour of the Petitioner in accordance with law and issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official Respondents, particularly the 3^"^ Respondent Sub-Registrar, withholding the registration of the plots lawfully purchased by the Petitioner in a public auction conducted by Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India), solely on the basis of unsubstantiated and extraneous claims made by Respondents 4 to 6 - arising out of execution proceedings in a civil suit against the original vendor Sri Karri Venkata Krishna Reddy, despite the auctioned property bearing no nexus or legal connection to such proceedings without conducting any inquiry, without drawing a panchanama, and without ascertaining the factual and legal position, as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, devoid of jurisdiction, and in violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, '•9('l)(g). and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and also in contravention of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and rules framed thereunder and consequently direct the 3^^^ Respondent to forthwith proceed with the registration of the sale deeds pertaining to the said plots in favour of the Petitioner in accordance with law and issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of case." arbitrarily in 4 2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent No.3 herein not to withhold and forthwith effect the registration in respect of the petitioner’s property admeasuring Acs.34.00 cents situated in survey No.2-8-439 covered by L.P.No.58 of 2009, Peddapuram, already registered in favour of the petitioner under document Nos.344, 3445, 3446 and 235 of 2009 on the ground that the petitioner has been participated in the auction process, emerged as highest bidder and accordingly purchased the property upon due payment of the full consideration amount. The mortgagor, Sri Karri Venkata Krishna Reddy, approached this Court, arguing that the property was sold by the mortgagee bank at a price below than market value and claimed that the sale proceeds were improperly applied to the outstanding amount owed by him, as he was acquainted with the bank. The matter was subsequently elevated to the Apex Court, where the parties involved entered into a tripartite agreement. They mutually agreed that the sale conducted by the mortgagee bank in favour of the petitioner was valid and binding. Additionally, it was acknowledged that the Writ Petition had obtained lawful title and possession of the auctioned property. The Apex Court recorded the settlement and issued a decision on the civil appeal, thereby resolving the issue. 3. The petitioner's counsel would further argue that, although there is no dispute regarding the property, the respondent No.3, the Sub Registrar, is not registering the documents submitted by the petitioner, claiming that civil suits are pending between the parties. 4. 5 «; 5. The learned counsel further states that the present petitioner previously filed a Writ Petition No.32148 of 2023 seeking similar relief as in this Writ Petition. This Court disposed of the earlier Writ Petition on I 02.01.2024, directing the petitioner to submit all documents the Sub- Registrar along with a representation, including tripartite agreement terms of compromise along with the order copy of the Apex Court for return of the document bearing Nos.753, 754, 755, 756 dated 03.03.2016 and directing the Sub-Registrar to make a decision on that • representation. 6. Petitioner’s counsel submits that basing on the said direction, the Sub-Registrar has registered the document and released the document in favour of the petitioner and requested this Court to pass the similar order in the present Writ Petition. Learned State Counsel would submit that under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Sub-Registrar either he has to register the document or pass an order of refusal and stated that appropriate order would be passed regarding the documents presented by the petitioner. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 dated 07.04.2025 in the case of K.Gopi \/s. Sub-Registrar and others, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 740, after considering the facts and law at paragraph No. 15 held in the following manner: 8. "15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in ‘respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot 6 ¥' refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executants possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer." As rightly argued by the learned State Counsel, the Sub-Registrar cannot withhold the document presented by the writ petitioner either refuse to register it with recorded reasons or register the document, as envisaged under Section 71 of the Registration Act. 9. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition, directing the petitioner herein to submit a detailed representation along with all documents including tripartite agreement along with the order of this Court to the respondent No.3-Sub Registrar and, on submitting the same, the Sub-Registrar is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law, keeping in view the judgment of the 10. 7 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and others referred supra. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any As a shall stand closed. Sd/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Stamps Registration Department Secretariat, Tulluru, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. Office of the District Registrar Rajahmundry 2. The District Registrar Andhra Pradesh. 3, The SubRegistrar, Peddapuram, Peddapuram District, Andhra Pradesh. 7. OneCCto Sri. SriVijay 8. Two CCS to GP For Registration Pradesh [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies. Kakinada Mandal, Mathukumilli, Advocate [OPUC] And Stamps High Court of Andhra AL HIGH COURT CC ONE WEEK DATED:01/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 21759 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS