IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10800 of 2014 Between:
M/s. Jaya Laxmi Housing Company, A partnership Firm, Rep. by its Partner Sri Syamala Mastan Reddy, S/o. Sri Sundara Rami Reddy, Hindu, Aged: 71 years, R/o. Plot No.C-61/A, Road No.1, Film Nagar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner AND The Sub-Registrar, Lankepalem, Sub-Registrar’s Office, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District & 6 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10800 of 2014 ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 on 04.09.2010 and as per the said Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioner has purchased land to an extent of Ac. 12.99 cents in Survey Nos.325 and 329/part of Desapatrunipalem, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a dispute arose with reference to the Memorandum of Understanding and the petitioner instituted O.S.No.445 of 2013, on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, praying for grant of specific performance, enforcement and permanent injunction. The said suit is pending consideration. While this being so, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner, as evident from the letter written by the Chief Urban Planner, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) (3rd respondent) to the Sub-Registrar, Lankalapalem, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam (1st respondent), dated 10.03.2014, wherein he sought to dispense with his personal appearance for registration of Deed of Re-conveyance of Mortgage executed by him in favour of M. Subba Raju mortgaging Plot Nos.1 to 31.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this would amount to giving back the land to respondents 5 to 7 and respondents 5 to 7 would be free to sell this land to others and in such an event, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner and would also prostrate the litigation already instituted by him. It would also invite third party interest and, therefore, he seeks to restrain the third respondent i.e., VUDA not to execute Deed of Re-conveyance of mortgage property.
4. There is no prohibition imposed by any statutory provision or rules or orders against re-conveyance as proposed by the VUDA. When there is no statutory bar and when the VUDA is competent to re-convey the mortgage, no restraint can be imposed by this Court in exercise of power of judicial review. No illegality or perversity on the part of the third respondent is pointed out to grant a writ of mandamus as sought by the petitioner. When the proposed re-conveyance by the VUDA is neither contrary to any statutory mandate nor is illegal or perverse, no writ can be issued.
5. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is an internal dispute between the petitioner and the owners of the property and the said dispute is now the subject matter of lis pending before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. Thus, the petitioner has to work out his remedies before the appropriate Court.
6. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. 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: 19th June, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10800 of 2014 Date: 19th June, 2014 KL