THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 112 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 27517 of 2023 dated 21.03.2024 IN Betweeni 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue Stamps and Registrations, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration Department, V Square Building, KSR Park Road Ward No.2, Tadepalli, Guntur District. 3. The District Registrar, Visakhapatnam ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP NO. 27517/2023 AND 1. WSN Raju, S/o VSN Raju Age 54 Years Occ; Business R/o Plot No Annapurna Towers, S N Raju Nagar, Bheemavaram, West 501, Godavari District. 2. Gottupothula Surya Narayana Raju, S/o Venkata Subbaraju, Age 62 R/o Renuka Enclave Legend Apartments, Rajbhavan Road, years, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3. Narra Ravinder Babu, S/o Narra Pothuraju Age 57 years R/o Plot No. 302, Rajeev Nagar Sai Balaji Nagar, Hyderabad 4. Pothuru Sujatha, D/o Vishnu Murthy Raju, Age 43 years, R/o D No 143128, Kolluru Manson, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN WP NO. 27517/2023 lA NO: 2 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 to suspend the operation of the order of Learned Single Judge dated: 21-03-2024 passed in W.P.No.27517 of 2023 pending disposal of the above writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS Counsel for Respondents: SRI V V SATISH The Court made the following: 1 A APHC010598002024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 112/2025 [3508] THE Between: The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others AND ...APPELLANT(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) Vvsn Raju and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VVSAT1SH The Court made the following Judgment. (perHon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.18648 respondents contended that they had The respondents of 2022. In this Writ Petition, the purchased various extents of land, from M/s. Srirama Co-operative House numbers of Vepagunta Village, District. The said link document is said to Building Society Limited, in various survey Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam be a deed of sale/Agreement of sale, dated 09.04.2009 2 2. The respondents had then approached the Joint Sub-Registrar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam for receiving the said documents. and for impounding and registering the said documents. However, the Joint Sub- Registrar, Gopalapatnam rejected the said request of the respondents. The appeal filed before the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam District, against the said order of rejection, was also dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders, W.P.No.18648 of 2022 came to be filed before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court, disposed of this Writ Petition, by way of an order, dated 04.07.2022, in the following manner: This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to direct the respondents to receive and impound, the unregistered link documents dated 9.4.2009 and to register the agreement of sale cum GPA vide P.No.07/2022 dated 30.12.2021. A perusal of the documents filed along with the Writ Petition clearly discloses that the issue pertains to deletion of the subject property from the prohibitory list. 2. 3. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to make an application along with relevant records to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such application, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, is directed to consider and dispose of the same on merits, within two months thereafter. 3. The respondents, after the aforesaid order had been passed, had approached the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Department with a request to receive the said agreement of 3 sale/deeds of sale, dated 09.04.2009, and to impound and collect stamp duty back to the respondents. The Inspector General before releasing them referred the matter to the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam who rejected the said applications again. The District Registrar, held that the land in question endowment land which is included in the prohibitory list, maintained under was Section 22-A of the Registration Act and that there were doubts about the the documents themselves. The District registrar also held that it veracity of would only be appropriate that the respondents approached the competent authority, for deletion of the properties, from the prohibitory list. aforesaid order of rejection of the District Aggrieved by the 10.06.2022, the respondents again approached this Court, by 4. Registrar, dated way ofW.P.No.27517of 2023. learned Single Judge, allowed the Writ Petition, following an Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra the case of T. Purushotham Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh in of 2010, dated 25.11.2010. The learned Single Judge following 5. The earlier order of a learned Judicature at Pradesh in W.P.No.11921 the aforesaid Judgment, took the view that the mechanism laid down under the Stamp Act only provided for collection of stamp duty for proper valuation of the documents and the question on going into the genuineness of the documents of the Act. The learned or otherwise is not permissible under the provisions Single Judge after taking this view, had directed the District Registrar, to receive the deficit stamp duty, payable on the document, dated 09.04.2009, and make necessary endorsement as per rule with the caveat that such collection of deficit stamp duty would not in any manner enhance the rights over the said property covered under the doucment nor would amount to de notification of the property. C 6. Aggrieved by this Judgment, the State has come up in appeal. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would contend that the earlier order of the learned Single Judge, dated 04.07.2022, in W.P.No.18648 of 2022 would amount to res judicata and as such, the orders of the learned Single Judge would have to be set aside. 7. Sri V.V. Satish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the cause of action for the respondents to approach this Court in the earlier round of litigation and the cause of action for approaching this Court in the present round of litigation arise out of different circumstances. The learned counsel would contend that in the first round, the Writ Petition came to be filed on account of the refusal of the Joint Sub-Registrar in registering the document whereas the present Writ Petition came to be filed on account of the refusal of the District Registrar in receiving and impounding the document for payment of deficit stamp duty. He would submit that in such circumstances, the earlier order of the learned Single judge would not in any manner bar the subsequent of the Writ petition which is now the subject matter of the appeal. 5 The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18648 of 2022 records that the relief sought by the respondents was a direction to the registration authorities to receive and impound the unregistered link document, dated 09.04.2009, and to register the subsequent agreement of sale-cum- GPA, dated 30.12.2021. This prayer was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to make an application along with relevant records to the District ^^lector, Visakhapatnam for deletion of the property from the prohibitory list. 8. ft 9. In the present case, the relief sought by the respondents was to direct the District registrar to receive and impound the document, dated 09.04.2009, and receive the deficit stamp duty payable on the document. The relief sought in both the cases is effectively one and the 10. The direction of the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.18648 of 2022, to for deletion of the property, from the same approach the District Collector Prohibitory list, has implicitly rejected the prayer of the respondents for a direction to the registration authorities to receive and impound the unregistered document, dated 09.04.2009. li. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the earlier order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, in amount to res judicata and the subsequent Writ Petition was not maintainable. In that view' of the matter, this Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 21.03.2024, in W.P.No.27517 of 2023. There shall be no order as to costs. W.P.No.18648 of 2022, would 12. 6 ( sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR As a f^sEcrf;:OFFICER //TRUE COPY// •{ To, GP for Registration & Stamps, High Court of Andhra 1. Two CCs to Pradesh. [OUT] 2. One CC to Sri V V Satish Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:17/02/2025 JUDGMENT c 2 8 FEB 2025 ^ . Current becuon WA.No.112of 2025 ft ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS