1 APHC010538042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 28018/2025 Between: 1. BEELA SURIDAMMA, W/O. LATE JOGINAIDU AGED 61 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. TANDRANGI VILLAGE JAMI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2 2. BEELA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE JOGINAIDU AGED 44 YEARS, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. TANDRANGI VILLAGE, JAMI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. BEELA THARAKA RAM, S/O. LATE JOGINAIDU AGED 40 YEARS, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. TANDRANGI VILLAGE, JAMI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. 2. THE DIRECTOR AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF 2 ANDHRA PRADESH TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT AT VIZIANAGARAM. 4 4. JOINT SUBREGISTRAR, . SUB REGISTRARS OFFICE S.KOTA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5. TASILDHAR, JAMI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 6. BEELA SANYASAMMA, W/O. LATE DEMUDU, AGED 70 YEARS, R/O.TANDRANGI VILLAGE, JAMI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 7. 7. KOTTALA RATNAKUMARI, W/O. LATE KOTTALA RATNAKUMARI, R/O. TANDRANGI VILLAGE, JAMI MANDAL, VIJAYANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PASALAPUDI SATYA HARITHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.28018 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondents particularly 4th respondent on the petitioners’ representation dt. 27.08.2025, submitted by way of objections against registration of any deed of conveyance being presented by Respondents 6 & 7 for the landed properties admeasuring in an extent of Ac.0.62 Cents covered by Sy. No 260/15 and Ac.0.32 Cents covered by Sy.No.16-15 (Total extent of Ac.0.94 Cents) situated in Jannivalasa Revenue Village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District and not to alter the revenue records of the subject lands, which are subjected to the Award dt 12.11.2022 passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S. No. 78 of 2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Srungavarapukota, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, rules, regulations and standing orders framed there under and offends article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to entertain registration of any deed of conveyance connected to the petitioners said properties, if presented by Respondents 6 & 7….” 4 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 filed a suit on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Srungavarapukota and the same was numbered as O.S.No.78 of 2020. Further, the matter has been referred to the Lok Adalat and based on the agreement filed by both parties, Lok Adalat Case No.180 of 2022 has been disposed of with the following observations: “Both parties are called present and they are represented by their respective counsels. Both parties have entered into compromise and filed terms of compromise. As per the terms of compromise, the defendant agreed to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule lands and in case of failure from the defendant, the Honourable Court to execute a registered sale deed on behalf of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and also deliver the possession of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff.” Subsequently, it came to the notice of the petitioners that violation of the agreement and award, respondent Nos.6 and 7 have alienated certain properties and created third party rights. Hence, 5 the petitioners filed the writ petition for a direction not to entertain any further alienations. 3. The relief sought by the petitioners is beyond the scope of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, as the third parties have violated the award, the remedy available to the petitioners is to go and file a recall application before the competent Civil Court and to pursue their remedies. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to approach the competent Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 04.11.2025 Ivd 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.28018 of 2025 Dated: 04.11.2025 Ivd