THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION NO.29130 OF 2009 Between:- Karri Srinivas.
…Petitioner.
And The District Registrar, East Godavari District, Kakinada and others.
…Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION NO.29130 OF 2009 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for respondent No.3.
The subject matter as it appears from the material available on record is agricultural land measuring Ac.2.98 cents in R.S.No.144/2 of Ramanayyapet village of Kakinada rural mandal. The petitioner claims right and title to the property through his grand father K.Pedda Raju. The petitioner further states that the 3rd respondent has no right and title to the petition land and is still meddling with the property by executing registered sale deeds. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for two prayers namely for a direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the representation dated 14-12-2009 of the petitioner against the alleged false and fake documents presented by respondent No.3 for registration and a declaration against the inaction in disposing of the said representation.
Mr.G.V.Saradhi learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade this Court on the strength of a few observations in the order of Mandal Executive Magistrate dated 14-11-2009 that the third respondent does not have possession, semblance of entitlement and therefore, proxy executants cannot be permitted to create false and fabricated documents for the petition land. His submission is that if the third respondent is permitted to execute registered deeds in this fashion, the petitioner will be exposed to unnecessary litigation.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent contends that the order of Mandal Executive Magistrate cannot be read in isolation, for the same was the subject matter before this Court and also the Apex Court and a combined reading of all the orders would show that the findings in favour of petitioner are not absolute. It is further stated the third respondent already filed a suit for injunction and is working out his remedies against the petitioner in the suit already filed by him. The learned counsel raises the legal objection that a mandamus cannot be issued restraining the authorities from discharging the duty/obligation under the Registration Act, 1908.
The learned Government Pleader submits that the representation dated 14-12-2009 was disposed on 15-12-2009 and there is no inaction and further it is stated that neither party has submitted any document for registration and the writ petition has been filed without any cause of action and at any rate, the Registration Act does not provide for with-holding registration of a document on the objection or accusation of a person claiming to have interest in the property covered by a document presented for registration. The learned Government Pleader further submits that it is for the contesting party to obtain appropriate order from a competent civil Court against the third respondent and according to the circular instructions issued by the Department if the prohibitory order is brought to the notice of the registering authority, then the registration of document is not proceeded with.
I have perused the material available on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The averments of the contesting parties disclose that there is a dispute of title and for possession between the petitioner and third respondent. The party whose right is threatened must pursue the remedies in a properly instituted suit. In the case on hand, one of the prayers is not available to the petitioner as the representation dated 14-12-2009 was disposed of by the first respondent on 15-12-2009. The other prayer virtually amounts to pre- judging the issue of title between the parties and ought not to be undertaken under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Further, restraining the first respondent from discharging the statutory duty under the Registration Act is unavailable and against the settled position of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
I am not inclined to exercise discretion for any purposes in the circumstances presented by the parties. The petitioner has to work out the remedies in a properly instituted suit before a competent civil Court.
With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
S.V.BHATT,J Date: 20-08-2014 Shr.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION NO.29130 OF 2009 Date: 20-08-2014 Shr.