THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.30240 of 2014 Dated : 20.10.2014 Between:
S. Ramachandra Reddy S/o.Bal Reddy, Aged about 60 yrs, Occu : Business, R/o.H.No.35-30/1, Vallabhanagar, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District & 2 others And The State of Telangana, Rep., by District Collector, Kadapa & another .. Petitioners .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.30240 of 2014 ORDER :
The petitioners claim to have purchased 14 ½ guntas of land each in Survey No.388/AA of Narsingayapally, H/o.Tatiparthy Village, Gopalpet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, from Vadde Chennaiah vide registered sale deed No.8626/2009 dated 23.12.2009. The petitioners intend to dispose of the property and when approached the Sub-Registrar, Nagarkurnool, Mahaboobnagar District (2nd respondent), the 2nd respondent refused to receive the deed of conveyance on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide letter No.B/355/2012, dated 02.08.2012 passed an order not to alienate the land to an extent of Ac.5-13 guntas in the said survey number.
2. This writ petition is instituted contending that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy, is not concerning the property in Survey No.388/AA but it was concerning the property in Survey No.388/Aa and therefore, it is a different property.
3. The matter earlier underwent adjournment for the purpose of obtaining instructions by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that application for issuing of certificate of occupancy rights by one T.Suvarnamma before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy, was allowed. Aggrieved thereby the vendor of the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar, which was also dismissed and aggrieved thereby writ petition is instituted which is pending on the file of this Court.
5. These averments would disclose that when the document sought to be presented before the Sub-Registrar, the order of Revenue Divisional officer, Wanaparthy staying the transactions for the lands in question was in operation which proceedings subsequently, went against the vendor of the petitioners. In view of the same, the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to entertain the document for registering sought to be presented by the petitioners for alienation of the same property cannot be said as illegal. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer/Joint Collector, they have to work out their remedies.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.
P.NAVEEN RAO,J Date : 20.10.2014 Rds