IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY ^ k TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE / I PRESENT ^ /' HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADD: WRIT PETITION NO: 25845 OF 2023 / I Between: Gajiala Venkata Rami Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged 51 years, R/o. Raghavaraja Puram Village and Post, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Stamps and Registration Department), Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Registrar, Annamayyah District, Rayachoti 3. The Sub Registrar, Pullampet, Annamayya District ...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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of refusal in Progs. No- Refusal No- 5/ 2023, dated 07.07.2023 issued by the 3'^^ respondent, thereby refusing to register document of Sale Deed dated 04.07.2023 (Presented on 05.07.2023) and keeping the same as pending document vide P. No 20/2023, dated 05.07.2023, in respect of the vacant site admeasuring 320 Sq.yds, covered by Sy.No.1630, Mysurivaripalli, Koduru Village and Post. Annamayya District, inspite of the same issue covered by repeated orders of this Hon'ble Court as illegal, irregular, irra Tonal, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and rules framed there under and offends Article 14 end 21, of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to register and release the said Sale Deed forthwith. >A NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to register and release the Sale Deed, Document P.No.20/2022 dated 04.07.2023 (presented on 05.07.2023) executed-in favor of the petitioner, pending disposal of main Writ Petition 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 APHC010501242023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 25845/2023 Between: ...PETITIONER Gajjala Venkata Rami Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT(S) State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.BALAJ1 M EDAMALL! Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) ::2:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 25845/2023 This Court made the following 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 nnore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of refusal in Progs. No; Refusal No: 5/2023, dated 07.07.2023 issued by the 3^^ respondent, thereby refusing to register document of Sale Deed dated 04.072023 (Presented on 05.07.2023) and keeping the same pending document vide P.No.20/2023, dated 05.07.2023, in respect of the vacant site admeasuring 320 Sq. Yds. Covered by Sy.No.1630, Mysurivaripalli, Koduru Village and Post, Annamayya District, in spite 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 thereunder and offends Article 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.” Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government as 2. Pleader for the respondents. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 3. ::3:: For better understanding the operative portion of the said order 4. reads as 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 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 5. appearing for the respondents. In view of the same, let there be a similar order in this case, 6. following the identical lines as in Writ Petition No.20032 of 2022, dated 21.11.2024. ;:4:: Having regard to the submission made by both the learned counsel, in view 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 Authorities to find out whether the petitioner, or his vendor parties to the order in C.R.P.M.P.No.1546/2012 in C.R.P 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. 7. are 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 8. this order. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand Sd/- K.KASI RAO ACHARI assistant registrar closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Secretary (Stamps and Registration Department), State of Andhra Pradesh, its Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Registrar, Annamayyah District, Rayachoti. 3. The Sub Registrar, Pullampet, Annamayya District. 4. One CC to Sri Balaji Medamalli, Advocate [OPUC] ^ PradS^^foUT]" ^^d Stamps, High Court of Andhra 6. Three C.D. Copies. (Along with copy of the order dated.21.11.2024 in W P No 20032 of 2022 enclosed herewith)* To, HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.25845 of 2023 S 2 8 MAY 2025 g Current Section DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS f . ‘KCJ W.^TMo.20032 of2022 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: Thuraka Madhavi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.BALAJI MEDAMALLI 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 to register the sale deed dated 28.03.2022 executed in favour of the petitioner by his vendor on the ground that the subject property is covered by <RCJ 'M.yip.Wb.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: <R£,J ‘.WVMo.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^ 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 CRP 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 ‘.W(p.<Kv.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, or her vendor are parties to the order in CRP No.ll47 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. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR