Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 01.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010648022018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31113/2018 Between: 1. PENUMUCHU BABU RAO, S/O KANAKAIAH, AGED 63 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANDEPUDI VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. KOTA RAMACHANDRA RAO, S/O. HANUMAIAH, AGED 86 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANDEPUDI VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (STAMPS AND REGISTRATIONS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, D. NO. 5-59, R. K. SPRING VALLEY APARTMENTS, EDUPUGALLU, KANKIPADU MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA-521151. KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, D. NO. 16-11-53, SWARNA PRABHA COMPLEX, ARURNDALPET, 11/2, GUNTUR-2, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 VS,J W.P.No.31113 of 2018 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. 5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, SHANKAR MATAM ROAD, PRAKASH NAGAR, NARASAROPETA-522601, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE SUBREGISTRAR, PEDAKURAPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 7. KOTA NAGABHUSHNAM, S/O. RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGE. NOT KNOWN, R/O. NEMALIKALLU, MANDEPUDI VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT of MANDAMUS by declaring the action of 5th Respondent in issuing the impugned Notice vide No. G1/1015/2018 Dated 17.08.2018 as per directions of the 4th Respondent as without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the provisions of the Registration Act and contrary to the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned notice issued by the 5th Respondent vide No. G1/1015/2018 Dated 17.08.2018 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned notice issued by the 5th Respondent vide No. G1/1015/2018 Dated 17.8.2018 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein/ Respondent No. 5 in the WP No. 31113 of 2018 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.31113 of 2018 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT of MANDAMUS by declaring the action of 5th Respondent in issuing the impugned Notice vide No.G1/1015/2018 Dated 17.08.2018 as per directions of the 4th Respondent as without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the provisions of the Registration Act and contrary to the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned notice issued by the 5th Respondent vide No. G1/1015/2018 Dated 17.08.2018 and pass ….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the 7th respondent, who is none other than son of the 2nd petitioner, made a representation vide No.2018-17146170, dated 13.08.2018, before the 4th respondent(‘Meekosam Grievance Cell), alleging that the petitioners herein had encroached upon his property to an extent of 20 cents situated in Sy.No.338/h and 13 cents situated in Sy.No.345/b of Mandepudi Village, Nemalikallu Hamlet, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District by forging the documents. 4. On receiving the said complaint, the 5th respondent issued the impugned notice dated 17.08.2018 directing the petitioners to appear before him for an enquiry to be conducted on 28.08.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4 VS,J W.P.No.31113 of 2018 5. When the matter came up for admission on 30.08.2018, this Court passed the following interim order: “There shall be interim suspension of the notice issued by the 5th respondent, vide No.G1/1015/2018, dated 17.08.2018”. 6. While passing the said order, this Court duly observed that the dispute leading to the issuance of the impugned notice relates to a private dispute between the parties and there is no public cause involved and hence, prima facie, it appears that the 5th respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. 7. The respondent No.5 has also filed a counter-affidavit duly stating that on the complaint made by the 7th respondent, he enquired into the allegations contained in the petition and submitted a report to the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad vide Lr.No.G1/1296/2015 dated 06.08.2015. In the said report, it was observed that the property is the ancestral property of the petitioners and that the 2nd petitioner is none other than the son-in-law of the 1st petitioner. It was further observed that the declaration made by the executants of document No.966/2015 of S.R.O., Pedakurapadu i.e., the 7th respondent herein, to the effect that the property covered under the document had devolved upon him after the death of his ancestors and that there were no coparceners to the property, was false. It is further stated that after examining the said report, the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., 5 VS,J W.P.No.31113 of 2018 Hyderabad vide Memo No.G3/852082015, dated 04.09.2015 directed that prosecution be initiated against the 7th respondent for making the said false declaration. 8. In pursuance of the said direction, on the complaint made by the 5th respondent before the Pedakurapadu Police Station, the 6th respondent herein registered Crime No.8 of 2016, dated 26.02.2016. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.391/2016 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli and the matter is pending adjudication before the said Court, wherein the 7th respondent is shown as accused No.1. The 5th respondent further contends that, pending the said criminal case, the 7th respondent also made a complaint before the District Collector, Guntur on 13.08.2018 in Spandana, which is the basis for issuance of the impugned notice calling upon the petitioners to appear for enquiry. 9. A perusal of the counter-affidavit shows that the 5th respondent had already lodged a complaint as against the 7th respondent herein in Crime No.08 of 2016 and, after due investigation, a charge sheet was also filed against the 7th respondent. Pending the said criminal case, the 7th respondent raised another complaint before the District Collector, which is nothing but an afterthought. Even otherwise, this Court is of the opinion that, when a criminal case is pending against the 7th respondent, the 5th respondent ought not to have entertained the complaint and ought not to have issued the present impugned notice. 6 VS,J W.P.No.31113 of 2018 10. Even otherwise, the contents of the complaint would disclose that it related to a private dispute between the petitioners and the 7th respondent. In such circumstances, the 5th respondent ought to have directed the 7th respondent to approach the appropriate civil Court seeking cancellation of the said document, if at all he was aggrieved by the same. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned notice dated 17.08.2018 issued by the 5th respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 01.07.2026 Pmk Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned  Reportable Non-reportable  7 VS,J W.P.No.31113 of 2018 218 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.31113 OF 2018 01.07.2026 Pmk