APHC010042932022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2854/2022 Between: Valpapuram Suresh Kumar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOPPARTHI SUMATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. DHANUNJAYA BARU The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the action of respondent authorities in registering document No.3467/2013 dated 23.10.2013 and document No.6902/2014 dated 06.08.2014 for the subject land in Sy.No.2158, 2163 admeasuring 33 1/3 Ankanams in Plot No.149 and 33 1/3 Ankanams in Plot No.150 situated at Kotturu Village, Nellore Bit-I, Nellore, without jurisdiction and contrary to provisions of A.P.Rights in Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and Registration Act, 1908, the present writ petition was filed. 2. Heard Smt Kopparthi Sumathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner purchased the subject land under registered sale deed on 08.11.2021. Now, at the instance of respondent nos.7 & 8, the respondent authorities (5 & 6) fraudulently registered the subject land in their favour vide document No.3467/2013 and document No.6902/2014. She further submitted that, the said action of respondent authorities in entertaining multiple registrations over same piece of land is contrary to provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and rules in vogue. If such registration subsists, respondent nos.7 & 8 may create 3rd party interest leading to multifarious litigations and further rights of the petitioner would be at stake. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that, once a document is registered, the registering authority has no power to cancel the same unilaterally by virtue of provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and if at all the petitioner has any grievance against the said registration, he has to approach competent Civil Court. Instead of doing so, the petitioner has approached this Court, raising unnecessary allegations against the officials. The petitioner has not made out any point warranting interference of this Court. As such prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, the respondent authorities have entertained multiple registrations over the subject land and registered the subject land in favour of respondent nos.7 & 8 vide document Nos.3467/2013 and 6902/2014 contrary to provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and rules in vogue. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, as against the said registration, the petitioner has to approach the Competent Civil Court. It is well settled that, there is no express provision in the 1908 Act which empowers the Registrar to recall the registration. Once the document is registered, it is not open to any Authority, under the 1908 Act to cancel the registration. The power conferred on the Registrar by virtue of Section 68 cannot be invoked to cancel the registration of the documents already registered. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any case which would fall within the parameters that are required under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and rules therein. If at all the petitioner has any grievance against the registration of the said document, he has to approach the competent civil court and question the same. In the said circumstances, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, if any, in accordance with law.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS