APHC010888282018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 42922/2018 Between: 1. M. AJAY KUMAR, S/O. M. ANAND KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, H.NO. 13-229, SANTHA PET, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4. THE SUBREGISTRAR, RAYADURG, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EOW, CID, R.O., KURNOOL. 6. AVANI GOLD FARMS AND ESTATES PVT LTD, ONGOLE, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5-32, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. POWER OFFICE, KURNOOL ROAD, ONGOLE, REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY D.VENKATESWARLU. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.No.42922 of 2018 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring action of the respondent No. 4 in issuing Intimation of Refusal dated 09.09.2015, refusing to register document vide Pending document No. 51 of 2015 executed by the 6th respondent in favour of the petitioner in respect of land in Sy.No. 42-D to an extent of Ac. 7.00 cents out of Ac. 22.72 cents situated at Gramadatla Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapuramu District at the instance of 5th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently DIRECT the respondents to register document vide Pending document No. 51 of 2015 executed by the 6th respondent in favour of the petitioner in respect of land in Sy.No. 42-D to an extent of Ac. 7.00 cents out of Ac. 22.72 cents situated at Gramadatla Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapuramu District 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 DIRECT the respondents not to create any rights in favour of third parties in respect of petitioners land in Sy.No. 42-D to an extent of Ac. 7.00 cents out of Ac. 22.72 cents situated at Gramadatla Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapuramu District, pending disposal of above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP) 3. Y L SIVAKALPANA REDDY(SC CUM SPL PP,CID) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.42922 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring action of the respondent No. 4 in issuing Intimation of Refusal dated 09.09.2015, refusing to register document vide Pending document No. 51 of 2015 executed by the 6th respondent in favour of the petitioner in respect of land in Sy.No. 42-D to an extent of Ac. 7.00 cents out of Ac. 22.72 cents situated at Gramadatla Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapuramu District at the instance of 5th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently DIRECT the respondents to register document vide Pending document No. 51 of 2015 executed by the 6th respondent in favour of the petitioner in respect of land in Sy.No. 42-D to an extent of Ac. 7.00 cents out of Ac. 22.72 cents situated at Gramadatla Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapuramu District and pass…” 2. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 06.08.2014 with the 6th respondent in respect of a land admeasuring Acs.7.00 cents out of Acs.22.72 cents in Sy.No.42-D of Gramadatla village, Rayadurg mandal, Anantapuramu district, for a valid sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-. Subsequently, when the petitioner approached the 4th respondent regarding registration of the document, the 4th respondent expressed no objection for the same and accordingly, the 6th respondent 4 VS,J W.P.No.42922 of 2018 executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 27.05.2015 vide pending document No.51 of 2015. 3. As the said document was kept pending for a long time, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent upon which, the impugned intimation dated 09.09.2015 was issued refusing to register the said document on the ground that the 5th respondent addressed a letter dated 23.06.2015 informing that a case is registered against the chairman of the 6th respondent and thus, to stop all further registrations under Section 22(1)(e) of the Registration Act. Hence, the present writ petition is filed 4. The 5th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that basing on complaints of E. Ramana Goud, Gadawal Rawoof and Uppar Venkatesh, who are the victims of the 6th respondent firm, Crime No.149/2013 (on the file of Yemmiganur Police Station), Crime No.25/2013 (on the file of Nandavaram Police Station) and Crime No.86/2013 of Isvi Police Station in Kurnool district and subsequently, the said cases were transferred to CID for further investigation vide memo bearing No.7126/C14/CID/2013, dated 18.01.2014. During the course of investigation, one T. Malyadri, Managing Director of the 6th respondent firm was shown as A1 in all the three cases and was arrested. During the course of investigation, he confessed that the land in Sy.No.42-D admeasuring Acs.7.00 cents out of Acs.22.72 cents situated in 5 VS,J W.P.No.42922 of 2018 Gramadatla village, Rayadurg mandal, Ananthapuram district was purchased by him from one J. Ananthamma vide document No.1704/2012 of Sub-Registrar Office, Rayadurgam by using public money. Subsequently, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide G.O.Ms.No.119, Home (General. A/A2) department, dated 16.08.2018 issued ad-interim order of attachment the subject property; pursuant to the same, the competent authority filed a petition on the file of the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool for issuance of absolute order in respect of the subject property attached vide G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 16.08.2018. 5. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the respondent authorities have issued the impugned letter 09.09.2015 basing on the letter addressed by the 5th respondent dated 23.06.2015 and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he can prefer an appeal before the District Registrar, Ananthapuram. Though the impugned order is passed on 09.09.2015, the petitioner has kept quiet for three years and filed the present writ petition on 16.11.2108 after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.119 of 2018, dated 16.08.2018. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard Sri. Butta Vijaya Bhasker, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. C. Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor 6 VS,J W.P.No.42922 of 2018 appearing for the 5th respondent and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 7. Perused the entire material available on record. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 06.08.2014 with the 6th respondent for purchase of land to an extent of Acs.7.00 cents out of Acs.22.72 cents in Sy.No.42-D of Gramadatla Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapuramu District. Thereafter, the 6th respondent executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 27.05.2015, which was kept pending as Document No.51 of 2015. Subsequently, the the impugned intimation dated 09.09.2015 was issued by the 4th respondent refusing registration on the ground that the 5th respondent had requested to stop registrations under Section 22(1)(e) of the Registration Act, in view of criminal cases registered against the Chairman/Managing Director of the 6th respondent firm. 8. Admittedly, three criminal cases were registered against one T. Malyadri, Managing Director of 6th respondent and was arrested. The cases were transferred to the CID for investigation. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 16.08.2018, attaching the subject property, and proceedings were initiated before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kurnool, for confirmation of the attachment. It 7 VS,J W.P.No.42922 of 2018 is at that juncture, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 2018 though the impugned refusal order pertains to the year 2015. 9. When the criminal cases registered against the 6th respondent and its Managing Director are still pending and the investigation and consequential proceedings have not attained finality, the property in question continues to be the subject matter of the said proceedings. In such a case, this Court cannot direct the respondent authorities to register the subject document. However, any further registrations of the document presented by the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the criminal cases pending against one T. Malyadri, Managing Director of the 6th respondent. 10. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 05.08.2026 Gss