Heard iVlr v. Srikantha Rao

4. Aleti Sridhar Reddy, S/o.Ramchandra.Reddv, ased 53. Yeal-s' 999 QY:ll?1t,; 'R/o Flat.no 2O1 , Karan Residency, Hasmathpet, Boin'palli, secunoeraDao 500003

5. Gunda Ravinder, S/o Rajamouli' aged 36 vears, occ Bunsiness' R/oHusnabad village and Ir/an',lal, District"Karimnaga'r Now siddipet District 6- Uooula Ram Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, R/oHusnabad village. and lvlandal, " Business' Husnabad village and mnadal, Karimnagar ",ijJ?s'v""rs,-oi6 Dlstrict Now SiddiPet District

7. Suddala lndira Devi, W/o Yellaaih, aged 53 years Occ House hold' ' ' nyoHusnaOaO village and l\ilandal, Districtkarimnagar Now Siddipet District 8. Bhkya Manga, W/o Srinivas, aged 33 .years, occ,House-Hold, H No 4-7811 - ffi;irj;pnras'ariiNayar iann'orit-tusnaSad mandal, Karimnagar District' Now Siddipet Distrlct ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 not consider the representatiorr dt 21101t2021 given by the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal in violation of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 consider :he representation df 2110112021 given petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petitior unrler Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents disposed the representation dt.21.01.2021 given by the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. SRIKANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: Ms. DARA HARITHA KIRAN, AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 8: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUI(ANTI WRIT PETITION No. L844 OF 2O2L ORDER: This "vrit petition is filed with the folloiving prayer "...to issue a Writ, Ordcr or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Manclarnus dcclaring the action of the Respotrdcut No.3 not cotisicier the representation dt. 2I.OI.2O2l given by the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal in violation of Constitution of India and consequentl.v direct tire Respondent Nos.l to 3 consider the representaiion dt. 21.01.2021given petitioncr and pass..."

2. Heard iVlr. V. Srikantha Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Dara Haritha Kiran, Iearrned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for respondent Nos.1 to 3

3. It is the case of petitioner that he entered into an agreement of sale with petitioner's vendor (Aleti Devendar Reddy) on 02.08.2020 for an extent of land admeasuring Ac.5.2O guntas in Sy.Nos.55, I29, l3O, 131 and 132 situated at Potharam village, Husnabad Mandal, Siddipet District. That when vendor of petitioner refused to execute the sale deed, petitioner filed C.O.S.No.1 of 2O2O before the Principal District Juclge-cum-commercial^cottrt, Karimanagar, for specific performance and also sought for interim injunction. ..s-\\. \l . 2 .IAK..I wP_ I 844_202 I That Cc'mmercial Court-I, Karimanagar, only issued urgent notice. It is further pointecl out that on 2l.Ol.2O2l, pctitionr:r .rpproacl-rcd respondent No.3 i.e., Sr-rb-Registrar, Husnabad, and nrade a representation not to er-rtertain the salc deed presented b,v respondent No.4 and that respondent No.3 dic[ not consicier the representation for not entertaining the salt: dt:ed presentecl b,v respondent No.4, hence, u'rit petition.

4. Learn,.--cl conrrsel for petitioner submitted that C.O.S.No.l of'2020 ri,as filed bl,petitioner (plaintil-Q, arraying his ven,lor (Aleti Devendar Reddy) as defendant. That ttre srrit for sper:ific pei forrnance of contract and other reliefs rrnder Slection 26 order VII Rule i & 2 of cpc is pending consider-ation in the coui't of Principal District Jurdge-cum- Commercial Court, Karin'inagar, numbered as C.O.S.No. i of 2o2o. It is lurther submitted that said case has been transferred to the Principal District Judge court of Siddipet bearing o.S.No.25 of 2024 and the said suit is pending consideration. J .IAK,.I wP_t844 2021

5. Learned counsel subnrittecl that petitioner be permitted to avail remedies in accordance with lau,

6. Learned counsel for rcspondents sttbrnitted that there are some disputes between petitioner and respondent No.4 and that the said suit for specific performance filed b1 petitioner against his vendor is pending before the appropriate Court

7. Heard iearned ccrunseis, perused [he record and considered the submissions B. Entire issue revolves around the agreement of sale u'ith respect to land admeasuring Ac.5.20 guntas at Potharam Village, Husnabad Mandal, Siddipet District

9. Be that as it m&5l, the suit for specific performance is filed by petitioner against his vendor with respect to the same subject issue and is pending consideration before the competent Court.

10. In view of the facts in the case, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the prayer sought for. i- I 4 .lAK..l wP_ I 844_202 I 1 1. As the rejection by Sub Registrar is not pressed, this Court is of the considereci opinion that interests of justice r,l,oulcl lt: nrcl. il pctitionet'is permitted to avail the remedics in accordancc u,ith larnr. Petitioner is granted libert-y to avail remcclies zrs per Iau'.

12. W th 1hc: al]orre obsen'ations, u'rit petition is dismissecl No cost:; Misce.lli.rrrc<tii:; applications pctrding, if any, shall starnd closed. ! sD/- M.NAGAMANI r/ TANT REGISTRAR ! /TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To One ,lC tr SRI V. SRIKANTHA RAO' Advocate IOPUC] TwoCCstoGPforStampP.SndRegistration,HighCourtfortheStateof i"fitlgrn, at HYderabad' [OUT] Two CD CoPies 1 2 3 MP TKS HIGH COURT DATED:2110812025 o c) ( * Ir-iE s 5c r.l t.ti ?_filfr * ORDER WP.No.1844 ot 2O21 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS u ")"