1 APHC010623872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] SATURDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 32383/2025 Between: 1. P PENCHALA BABU, S/O P.PRAKASH RAO, AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O D.NO.28-14, KOTHAPETA, VINUKONDA TOWN, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. THE SUBREGISTRAR, VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. U RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the Draft Memo bearing No.G2/19134/2011, dated 01-12-2011, as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and issue a consequential direction to the respondents without reference to the Draft Memo receive the document, process, register and release the document pertaining to the house property admeasuring 145 sq. yards out of Ac.02-31 cents in Sy.No.394/1/1, situated at ABM Compound, Venkateswara Hall back side, Vinukonda town, Palnadu District and to pass ….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The petitioner sought to sell 145 sq. yards of house property in Sy.No.394/1/1 situated at ABM compound, Venkateswara Hall back side, Vinukonda town, Palnadu District. The 4th respondent had refused to entertain the said deed of sale on the ground that there was a Draft Memo bearing No.G2/19134/2011 dated 01.12.2011, issued by the 2nd respondent, prohibiting any transactions in the said survey to be recorded in the offices of the Registration Department. 4. Aggrieved by the said Memo said to have been issued by the 2nd respondent and the refusal of the 4th respondent in entertaining the sale deed presented by the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3 5. The validity of the Draft memo bearing No.G2/19134/2011 dated 01.12.2011, issued by the 2nd respondent had been considered by this Court in various Judgments including the W.P.Nos.26778 and 26792 of 2017, W.P.No.34689 of 2012, W.P. No.8720 of 2019 and WP No.14812 of 2020. In all these cases, the said Draft Memo has been set aside. 6. In the circumstances, there is no impediment for the 4th respondent to entertain and register the sale deed presented by the petitioner in relation to the aforesaid land. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the 4th respondent to receive and register the documents presented by the petitioner, in relation to the aforesaid property, if it is otherwise in order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH 22.11.2025 Vns