APHC010345592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY© TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17680 OF 2025 Between: 1. Epuri Sareveswara Rao, S/o. Epuri. Lavenamma, Aged about 60-yrs, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. D.No. 11-41, Mailurai Center, Near- ROM Chruch-Gollapudi, Vijayawada Rural-AP. 2. Epuri Durga, D/o. Epuri Lavenamma, Aged about 56-yrs, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. D.No. 11-41, Mailurai Center, Near- RCM Chruch- Gollapudi, Vijayawada Rural-AP. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its. The Principal Secretary Department of Revenue and Stamps, Velagapudi, Secretariat -AP. 2. The Sub-Registrar, SRO- Ibrahimpatnam, N.T.R.District-AP. 3. The Commissioner, CRDA, Government of AP Vijayawada. Lenin Center, 4. The Deputy Inspector of Surveys, Sub-Collector Office, Vijayawada, Krishna district-AP. 5. The Mandal Tahsildar, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, N.T.R. District - AP. ...Official Respondents 6. Sri Lalith Jain, S/o. Devi Chand, Age about 42-yrs, R/o. D.No. 10-4-17, Brahmin Street, Vijayawada-1. ...Private Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution drcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, pleased to issue any appropriate writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to direct register further transactions of the Sale Agreement Attorney vide Doc No. 6591/2005. Dt. above 02nd respondent with the least 608/2016 vide Dt. 21.09.2022 Court. Vijayawada. IANOMOF 2025 of India praying that in the . the High Court may be more particularly the 3rd respondent not to or order or direction one cum General Power of 17.12.2005 registered on the file of the influence of the order in O.S. No on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances stated .. , High Court may be pleased to direct the 03rd respondent not to grant any permissions or to build up any upon the Scheduled Property vide R.S. No. cents, 418/6 to an extent of 0.17 an extent of 0.10 cents to a tune of 0.87 cents si complaint against the 06th Private Respondent i Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, U/Sec.420.468,471,447,427,506. Bhavani Puram Police Station, layouts or further constructions 419/3 with an extent of 0.60 420/3 to cents R.S. No. since the private IS pending before the Hon'ble Vijayawada Vide CF No.3395 of 2025, on the file of the 120(B), 467 r/w 34 IPC Vijayawada. On the strength of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the fraudulent decree vide Civil Appeal No. 1844/2010 in the case of H.S. Goutham Anr. Etc. on 12.02.2021. vs Rama Murthy and Counsel for the Petitioners: I . .. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. SRI RAJESH KUMAR B 4 & 5: GP FOR REVENUE 1 & 2: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND The Court made the following order: APHC010345592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ili' [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO thousand and TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17680/2025 Between: 1.EPURI SAREVESWARA RAO. S/0. EPURI. LAVENAMMA. AGED ABOUT 60-YRS, OCC-AGRICULTURE. R/0. D.NO. 11-41, MAILURAI CENTER, RURAL-AP. 2.EPURI DURGA,, D/0. EPURI LAVENAMMA, AGED ABOUT 56-YRS. OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/0. D.NO. 11-41, MAILURAI CENTER,’ NEAR- RCM CHRUCH-GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL-AP. ...PETITIONER(S) NEAR- RCM CHRUCH-GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND STAMPS VELAGAPUDI, SECRETARIAT-AP. 2.THE SUBREGISTRAR SRO- IBRAHIMPATNAM, N.T.R.DISTRICT- AP. 3.THE COMMISSIONER, CRDA, GOVERNMENT OF AP. LENIN CENTER. VIJAYAWADA. 4.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SURVEYS. SUB-COLLECTOR OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-AP. 5.THE MANDAL TAHSILDAR, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANUAL, N.T R DISTRICT-AP. 6.SRI LALITH JAIN, , S/0. DEVI CHAND, AGE ABOUT 42-YRS, R/0. D.NO. 10-4-17, BRAHMIN STREET, VIJAYAWADA-1. ...RESPONDENT(S): r”F“” f„FhP t ® ‘° ^'''®''‘ ‘'’® °2'''' respondent nF to register vide n *9''®®'^®"' ®‘rm General Power of Attorney vide Doc No^ 6591/2005, Dt. 17.12.2005 registered on the file of the above 02nd respondent with the least influence of the order in O.S No 608/2016 vide Dt. 21.09.2022 on the file of the lind Additional Senior Civil may be one Judge Court Vijayawada and pass \A NO: 1 OF 209^ Petition under Section 151 CPC in th^ off-^ 4:-i • P'^aying that in the circumstances stated dlec" theP efn '^® P'®®®®^ espondent not to grant any permissions or to build up any '/°f constructions upon the Scheduled Property vide R.S No 419 3 with an extent of 0.60 cents, 418/6 to an extent of 0.17 cents R.S. No com I , ° ® ° ®®®'s since the private complaint against the 06th Private Respondent is pending before the Hon'ble m/F lofxl Mag'strate Court, Vijayawada Vide CF No.3395 of 2025 U/Sec.420,468,471,447,427,506,120(8), 467 r/w 34 IPC on the file of the Bhavani Puram Police Station, Vijayawada. On the strength of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the fraudulent decree vide I Appeal No. 1844/2010 in the case of H.S. Goutham vs Rama Murthy and Anr. Etc. on 12.02.2021and pass ^ Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.RAJESH KUMAR B Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following order: Fleard Sri B.Rajesh Kumar, appearing through online and Sri Divya Teja, learned Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4. learned counsel for the petitioners Assistant Government The above writ petition has been filed to direct the 3^^^ respondent not to of the Sale Agreement cum General Power 2. register documents, in pursuance of Attorney vide Doc.No.6591/2005, dated 17.12.2005. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are legal heirs of late Epuri Lavenamma, successors and absolute owners to an extent of Ac. 0.17 cents in Sy.No.418.6, Ac. 0.60 cents in Sy.No.419.3 and Ac. 0.10 cents in Sy.No.420-3 of Gollapudi Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal. 4. Sri Epuri Malleswara Rao and Sri Epuri Bennu filed O.S.No.608 of 2011 of 11 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against Sri Epuri on the file Yesudasu, Sri Epuri Sarveswara Rao and Sri Lalith Jain seeking cancellation General Power of Attorney, bearing document of Sale Agreement cum No.6591/2005 dated 17.12.2005, registered on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Ibrahimpatnam, executed in favour of the 3'"^ defendant. The said suit was dismissed on 27.09.2022. He would submit that an appeal was filed against the judgment and decree. Pending appeal, the O'*" respondent is presenting the documents, and the O'"' respondent is entertaining the documents. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that unless and until a restraint order is passed by a competent Civil Court, or the property is in the list of prohibited properties, the Sub- Registrar is bound to receive and process the document presented before the authority by following the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. As seen from the copy of the judgment in O.S.No.608 of 2016, filed as one of the material papers, Sri Epuri Malleswara Rao and Sri Epuri Bennu filed suit against Sri Epuri Yesudasu, Sri Epuri Sarveswara Rao and Sri Lalith “ Jain seeking cancellation of Sale Agreement cum General Power of Attorney, ^ bearing document No.6591/2005 dated 17.12.2005, registered on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Ibrahimpatnam, executed in favour of the 3'^ defendant i.e., Sri Lalith Jain. The said suit was dismissed, on the contest with costs vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2022. 5. 6. 4 7. Though the learned counsel would contend that an appeal is filed against the judgment and decree and the same is pending, when the court enquired to furnish the number of the appeal, since the same was not mentioned in the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner could not furnish the same. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the 6 respondent, in pursuance of the registered General Power of Attorney, is transacting in the lands despite the appeal being pending before the Appellate Court; this Court is persuaded by the said contention. The petitioners should have secured a restraint order from the Appellate Court. Unless a restraint order is passed by the Appellate Court, this Court, in a Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally will not restrain the Sub-Registrar from registering any documents, especially when the registered Sale Agreement cum General Power of Attorney stands in the name of the 6 respondent. th th 9. Whenever a document is presented, the registering authority must receive and process the same subject to fulfilment of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act. If the authority refuses to register, an order under Section 71 of the Registration Act needs to be passed. However, in the case at hand, the relief sought by the petitioner, as indicated, is misconceived. This Court does not find any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR . //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to Sri Rajesh Kumar B, Advocate 2. One CC to Smt. S Pranathi (SC for APCRDA), Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court 4. Two CCs to GP for Registration Pradesh [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies [OPUC] of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] and Stamps, High Court of Andhra TF # HIGH COURT DATED:16/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 17680 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS