Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5613 (AP)

BANALA SASIBHUSHAN v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/5195/2026 · 2026-07-13

B S Bhanumathi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010089482026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the fourteenth day of July two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Writ Petition Between: Banala Sasibhushan, S/o. B. Nagabhushanam, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. D. Tirupati Urban mandal, Tirupati and 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati 2. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Tadepalli, Guntur 3. The District Collector, Tirupati district, Tirupati. 4. The District Registrar, Sri Balaji Registration 5. The Joint Sub- Tirupati. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) the fourteenth day of July two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.5195 of 2026 , S/o. B. Nagabhushanam, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. D. No. 17-3-274, Poola Street, Tirupati City, andal, Tirupati district, Andhra Pradesh – 517 501. f Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Tadepalli, Guntur district. The District Collector, Tirupati district, Tirupati. The District Registrar, Sri Balaji Registration district, Tirupati. -Registrar-I, R.O., Sri Balaji Registration district, ….Respondents IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] the fourteenth day of July two thousand and twenty six Bhanumathi , S/o. B. Nagabhushanam, Aged about 38 years, 274, Poola Street, Tirupati City, 517 501. …Petitioner , rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department, A.P. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and istrict, Tirupati. , R.O., Sri Balaji Registration district, .Respondents 2 BSB, J W.P.No.5195 of 2026 Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Chamarthy Leela Srinivasa Varma Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Registration & Stamps The Court made the following: 3 BSB, J W.P.No.5195 of 2026 ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the acts, deeds, things of the respondents Nos.4 & 5, keeping aside the petitioner’s document, i.e., Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed, dated 22.12.2025, by noting refusal No. 19/2025, issuing pending P.No.40/2025, passing impugned order dated 29.12.2025, and Endt. No. G/316/2026, dated 04.02.2026 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of principles of natural justice and misinterpretation on the Court orders, violation of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent No.5 to assign the regular registration number to the petitioner Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed, dated 22.12.2025 pending number vide P. No. 40/2025, release the document and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The respondent No.5 filed a counter stating, at paragraph No.4, that property to an extent of Ac. 2.76 cents in Sy. No.308 was deleted from the prohibited property list on 28.03.2026 as per the orders of this High Court in W.P.M.P. No. 8825 of 2009 in W.P. No. 6749 of 2009 and as such, the subject property is not included in the prohibited property 4 BSB, J W.P.No.5195 of 2026 list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as on date. It was further stated that if the petitioner presents the document, the respondent No.5 will process the registration as per law. 3. In view of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief has become infructuous and the writ petition may accordingly be disposed of. 4. As such, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.14.07.2026 RAR Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No