THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.39073 of 2014 Dated : 22.12.2014 Between:
Nelapati Vivekananda Vidhya Sagar, S/o.N. Prasad Rao, Age 45 yrs, Occu : Business, R/o.D.No.4-23, Gollametta, Yeleswaram, East Godavari District.
.. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 2 others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.39073 of 2014 ORDER :
The petitioner claims to be the lessee of land to an extent of Ac.11.93 cents in Survey No.188/1, 187/4 and 87/5 of Yeleswaram Village. He is a tenant of Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church. The grievance of the petitioner necessitating to institute this writ petition is that the 3rd respondent is now seeking to grant lease of the same property to third parties and to this extent, it is taking active steps. The petitioner also apprehends that the 3rd respondent is now proposing to present the lease agreement for registration before the Sub-Registrar and therefore seeks an order of restraint on the 2nd respondent to entertain any such document for registration.
2. The registering authority has to act in accordance with the Indian Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act, whenever a document is presented before him for registration. As listed out in Rule 58 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act, the registering authority cannot refuse registration nor can entertain any objection against any registration unless the parameters mentioned in the said Rule are satisfied. In this case, the petitioner admits the ownership, rights of 3rd respondent on the property on which the lease was granted to him, unless it is alleged that an unauthorized person is carrying out registration of the document or is misrepresenting though he is not the person entitled to undertake such registration, if the document is forged and the person who is appearing as a representative does not qualify to be a representative the Sub-Registrar cannot entertain any objection nor can he refuse registration. None of these parameters are satisfied in this case. Unless there is an embargo on the registering authority to undertake registration, no restraint can be imposed on the registering authority to receive and register the document.
3. It is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that aggrieved by 3rd parties interference in possession and enjoyment of the property and seeking to undertake construction illegally, the petitioner instituted O.S.No.103 of 2014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu. In I.A.No.591 of 2014, the Junior Civil Judge, granted injunction order against the respondents therein restraining from interfering with peaceful possession of the petitioner over the schedule property. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said order is still in force. However as seen from the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, and as agreed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 3rd respondent herein is not a party to the said suit and that no declaration is sought against him. Thus there is no restraint imposed by the competent Court against the 3rd respondent to grant lease to any other person. If the petitioner has grievance against termination of his lease during its subsistence, and that another party sought to be inducted as lessee, the petitioner has to work out his remedy independently and no declaration as sought by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent can be granted.
4. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.
P.NAVEEN RAO,J 22nd December, 2014 Rds