IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.21229 of 2014 Between:
Batchu Narsinga Rao, S/o. Late Appa RAo, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. K.K. Peta, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam.
.. Petitioner AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & another .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.21229 of 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner claim to be the owner of land to an extent of Ac. 0.27 cents in Survey No.514/13 of Ponnada Revenue Village, Etcharla Mandal, Srikakulam District. A Deed of Conveyance presented before the Sub-Registrar, Ponduru, Srikakulam District (2nd respondent) was refused for registration on the ground that the subject land is covered by an order of injunction passed by this Court.
2. In I.A.No.238 of 2011 in O.S.No.5 of 2011, there was an injunction against alienation of the suit schedule properties which is to an entire extent of Ac. 125.00 cents. Aggrieved by this order, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1194 of 2011 is filed. This Court, by order, dated 03.11.2011, confined the order of injunction to Ac. 41.05 cents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the objection raised by the Sub-Registrar is not valid and that the land of the petitioner is not covered by the injunction order and that the petitioner is not a party to the pending suit i.e., O.S.No.5 of 2011.
4. However, it is not clear from the documents enclosed to the writ petition that the land which the petitioner claims to be his own land is not part of the injunction order subsisting. It is a question of fact which requires consideration. The petitioner has a remedy of appeal against the decision of the Sub-Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner without exhausting the remedy of appeal instituted this writ petition.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the District Registrar and the District Registrar shall consider the appeal with reference to the scope and extent of the injunction order subsisting in the land in Survey No.514/13 and to consider the claim of the petitioner that his land is not covered by the injunction order. The petitioner is granted liberty to place all relevant documents in support of his claim that the land owned by the petitioner is not covered by the injunction order. As and when such appeal is filed, the District Registrar shall consider and pass a reasoned order, if necessary by affording personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of referring to such an appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 30th July, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.21229 of 2014 Date: 30th July, 2014