APHC010208222018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 9119/2018 Between: 1. B.LAKSHMI REDDY,, S/O B.MUNASWAMY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O.KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PRL SECY REVENUE DEPT STATE OF A P, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIST REGISTRAR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, RENIGUNTA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) NJS,J W.P No.9119 of 2018 2 The Court made the following Order: The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in not entertaining the registration of the documents in respect of the subject matter property as illegal, arbitrary, etc., and for the consequential directions. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition inter alia submits that the petitioner was successor of the subject matter properties which were granted by way of un-registered patta in favor of the petitioner’s father. He submits that as the nearby land owner is trying to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the land in question, a suit for injunction vide O.S No.482 of 2015 was filed before the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, and the same was decreed on 18.01.2016. He submits that no appeal was preferred against the said judgment and decree. Be that as it may. 3. The learned counsel submits that when the petitioner presented the documents in respect of the subject matter property before the respondent No.3 for registration purpose, the same were not accepted and as such, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition seeking appropriate orders. 4. Mr. K Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is lacking in material details as to the date on which the said documents were presented before the respondent No.3. He submits that if the documents were submitted to the respondent No.3 as stated in the affidavit, appropriate orders would have been passed as required under the provisions of the Registration Act. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that if the petitioner presents the documents now, appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act will be taken by respondent No. 3. NJS,J W.P No.9119 of 2018 3 6. In view of the said submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner agrees for disposal of the writ petition, with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent No.3 and submit the relevant documents for registration in respect of the subject matter properties. 7. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit the documents in respect of the subject matter property for registration and on receipt of the same, the respondent No.3 shall take necessary action on the same. In the event, there are any objections for registration, the same shall be intimated to the petitioner by way of an order, as contemplated under Section 71 of the Registration Act, under proper acknowledgment so that the petitioner may work out his remedies in accordance with law. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:09.12.2025 Ksj