IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMA TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM lA No.3 OF 2024 AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 1077 OF 2024 lA No.3 OF 2024 Between: 1. Kesam Hari Babu, So late Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 57 years, cultivation, R/o. Obulanaidupalem, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District, Guntur JCJC. 2. KesamChinnaKoteswara Rao, S/o. Peda Hussain, Hindu, aged about 68 years, cultivation, R/o. Obulanaidupalem, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District, Guntur JCJC. 3. Kesam Sivaiah, S/o. Peda Hussain, Hindu, aged about 78 years, cultivation, R/o. Obulanaidupalem, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District, Guntur JCJC. 4. Kesam Lakshmi Kanthamma, W/o. PedaKoteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 73 years, cultivation, R/o. Obulanaidupalem, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District, Guntur JCJC. ...Leave Petitioners/Writ Appellants AND 1. Nagarajan Bharath, S/o. T. SwetharanyaNagarajan, Hindu, Aged about 50 years, R/o. HN. 13-84, Padamata Vijayawada Town Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. A*'. ...Respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue Stamps and Registration Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue Represented by its Principal Secretary Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The District Register stamps and Registration Department, Guntur, Guntur District. The District Collector/Joint Collector, Guntur, Guntur District The Revenue Divisional Officer, (RDO) Guntur Guntur District The Mandal Revenue Officer, (MRO) Guntur, Guntur District. Sri KesamVeeraiah, S/o. Ramaiah, aged about 73 years R/o. D.No. 5-69, Obuinaidupalem, Guntur Rural Mandal Guntur, Guntur District. KesamHarinadh @ Baji, S/o. KesamVeeraiah, aged about 48 years R/o. D.No. 5-69, Obuinaidupalem, Guntur, Guntur District. T 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ...Respondents 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 judgment of the Ld. Single Judge of this Hon’ble High Court dated 11-12-2024 passed in W.P. No.29130 of 2024, pending the disposal of the above writ appeal in the interest of justice. WRIT APPEAL NO: 1077 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11.12.2024 in W.P. No. 29130 of 2024 on the file of the High Court. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI C. V. R. RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: M/s. SIVA KUMARI SURINENI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4: GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION r ■f" SJ i y / ^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3,5,6 & 7: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9: --- The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM I.A.No.S of 2024 and WRIT APPEAL No: 1077 of 2024 ORDER & JUDGMENT: (per Hon 'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The respondent No.1 had moved this Court by way of W.P.No.29130 of 2024, against the respondents 8 and 9, with the contention that they are the owners of Ac.2.00 cents of land in Survey No./D.No.122-D of Obulnaidupalem, Pothuru village, Guntur Taluka, Guntur District, and had entered into an agreement with the first respondent for selling away the property. However, instead of completing the sale transaction, the respondents 7 and 8 are trying to alienate this land to various persons and the same is not permissible. The 1 respondent also states that he had already filed O.S.No.149 of 2024 before the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Guntur, for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 20.11.2017, and it is necessary to issue directions to the registration authorities as well as the revenue authorities not to permit any alienation of land by the respondents 8 and 9. It was also contended that I.A.No.1 of 2024 was moved for temporary injunction pending the suit. St A learned single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 11.12.2024, in Writ Petition No.29130 of 2024, while holding that he would not inclined to entertain O 2 the writ petition, had directed that I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.149 of 2024 to be 4V disposed of, within a period of eight weeks and for maintenance of status quo obtaining as on today, in regard to registration of any documents/ instruments creating any third party rights over the land till disposal of the I.A.No.1 of 2024. The appellants herein being aggrieved by the said order, have approached 3. this Court by way of the present appeal along with application for leave to file the appeal. The case of the appellants is that they have a right and title over the land. 4. It is stated that the respondents 8 and 9 had created certain transactions in favour of one Smt.Prasanna Lakshmi, due to which, the appellants had approached the II Additional District Judge, Guntur, in O.S.No.15 of 2020 for a declaration that the said transactions are void and for a consequential permanent injunction. The parties to this suit are said to have arrived at a settlement, on 14.09.2024, and the same was recorded by the Lok Adalat, which passed an award recording the terms and compromise. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 herein, is said to have filed O.S.No.149 of 2024 at the behest of the respondents 8 and 9 solely for the purposes of going behind the award passed by the Lok Adalat on 14.09.2024. The appellants have also set out various details as to the disputes between them and the respondents 8 and 9 as well as the issue arising between them. 3 5. In view of these details, it does appear that they are necessary parties to the writ petition itself and consequently have to be granted leave for filing the present appeal. The nature of the claims made by the appellants herein, as well as the fact that the respondents 8 and 9 had settled the matter with these appellants, by way of Lok Adalat award dated 14.09.2024, clearly entitle the appellants to move the present appeal. Consequently, leave is granted. 6. Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and consequently no interim measures could have been granted by the learned Single Judge. He would contend that the grant of an order of status quo, pending disposal of I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.149 of 2024, would prejudice the interests of the appellants as well as the other parties to the suit. Smt.Siva Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the 1®* respondent would 7. contend that the appellants have suppressed facts and have not come to this Court with clean hands. She would further contend that the alienation of property, pending disposal of O.S.No.149 of 2024, would prejudice the interest of respondent No.1, in as much as such alienation would cause multiplicity of proceedings and effectively render any decree that may be obtained infructuous. She would -submit that in such circumstances, there was any necessity for approaching this Court for interdicting the act of the 1®‘ respondent in recording or 1 T i 4 i registering any deeds of alienation and consequential revenue proceedings for N amendment of the revenue records. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitionwould show that the reliefs sought in the writ petition are essentially civil reliefs that are required to be sought from a court of competent jurisdiction. In the present case, such a remedy has already been invoked by filing O.S.No.149 of 2024. An application for injunction restraining alienation of the property by the respondents 8 and 9, had already been filed by way of I.A.No.1 of 2024. 8. In these circumstances, the writ petition was not maintainable on two 9. grounds. Firstly, a writ petition against private parties in the guise of seeking St orders against official respondents, would not be maintainable. Secondly, the 1 respondent having already approached the civil Court by way of a suit and by way of an interlocutory application cannot seek to invoke parallel remedies. 10. In view of the fact that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, the learned single Judge had rightly declined to entertain the writ petition. However, it would have been appropriate, that the 1®* respondent, was relegated to the civil Court for appropriate relief, without any further protection being given, in as much as the writ petition itself was not maintainable. /A 5 In the circumstances, this writ appeal is disposed of, leaving it open to the respondent to pursue his remedies before the Civil Court. However, the status quo granted by learned Single Judge pending disposal of I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.149 of 2024 is set aside. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue Stamps and Registration state of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Departnrrent of Revenue, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District, and Registration Department, Guntur, Guntur 3. The District Register stamps District. 4. The District Collector/Joint Collector, Guntur, Guntur District Divisional Officer, (RDO) Guntur Guntur District (MRO) Guntur, Guntur District. 5. The Revenue 6. The Mandal Revenue Officer 7. One CC to Sri C. V. R. Rudra Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to M/s.Siva Kumari Surineni, Advocate [OPUC] & Registration, High Court of A.P. at 8. 9. Two CC’s to GP for Stamps Amaravati[OUT] 10. Two CC’s to GP for Revenue 11. Three CD Copies. High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] ssb \ HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 ORDER lA No.3 of 2024 in of andh^ WA.No.1077 of 2024 X 2 7 JAN 272^ O) ^ ^ Curreni Section DISPOSING OF THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS