1. Gachhumale Anantha Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition UMer Article 226 of the Constitution o{ lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or writs order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No. 4 in not considering our representation dated 24-03-2o25nol considering my representat-ion to stop entertaining any registrations in respect of Plots No. 458, 493, 499, 500, 50'1, 502, and 503, forming part of Survey Nos. 265/3 and 266/5, situated at Bowrampet Village, Gandimaisamma, Dundigal Mandal, lvledchal- Malkajgiri District in favour of third parties by refusal Lr No,318/SRO lQfBlzozs Dated.03-04-2025, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the Respondent No.4 to consider myrepresentation daled 24-03-2O25 by stopping to entertain registration Of Plots No. 458, 493, 499, 500, 501, 502, and 503, forming part of Survey Nos. 265/3 and 266/5, situated at Bowrampet Village, Gandimaisamma, Dundigal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in favour of third pa(ies in the interest of justice and equity. I.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under 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 3rd Respondent to forbear from entertaining any registrations Of Plots No. 458, 493, 499, 500, 501 , 502, and 503, forming part of Survey Nos. 265/3 and 266/5, situated at Bowrampet Village, Gandimaisamma, Dundigal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Districtin favour of third parties considering Our representation daled 24-O3-2025 pending disposal of the writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI S.S.R.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.13647 of 2O2S ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.4 in not considering the representation of the petitioners dated 24.03.2025 for not to entertain any registrations in respect of Plot Nos.458, 493,499,500, 50l, 502 and 503 forming part of Sy.Nos.265l3 and 266/5 situated at Bowrampet Village, Gandimaisamma, Dundigal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in favour of third parties by refusal Lr.No.318/SRO/QTB/2O25 dated 03.04 .2025 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Stamps ancl Registration appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the pe titioners being husband and wife have purchased diflcrcnt extents of lands in Sy.Nos.265/3 arrl 266 l5 situated at Bowrampet Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, 2 SK, J WP No. 13647 of 2025 Ranga Reddy District now Medchal-Ma-lkajgiri District from its lauful owners by virtue of simple sale deeds on different dates and ever since they are in peaceful possession ald enjoyment o[ those lands without any interference. For validating the said sale deeds for the purpose of loan, the petitioners have approached the respondent No.3-District Registrar, but he refused to receive and validate t-he same. As the subject plots are vacant, some unauthorized persons are attempting to grab thc lands of petitioners. He further submits that thc petitioners made a representation dated 24.03.2025 before the respondent No.4 not to register the subject plots to anybod_v. In response to the same, the respondent No.4 issued letter vide Lr.No.318/SRO/ QTB/2025 dated 03.04.2025 to the petitioners to produce any orders from the compe-'tcnt Court to take further action in the matter. He lurthcr submits that as the respondent No.4 is not considering the representation of the petitioners dated 24.03.2025, they liled the present writ petition and requested to direct the respondent No.4 to consider the said representation as pcr law i t Ii i! i ! ! t N 3 SK, J WP No. 13647 of 2025

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submits that in view of the request made by the petitioner No.1, the respondent No.4 has already issued a letter dated 03.04.2025 to the petitioners to produce any orders from the competent Court to enable the office to take further action in the matter and the petitioners without producing the said orders before the respondent No.4 have approached this Court and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that pursuant to the represcntation of the petitioner No.1 dated 24-03.2025, which r',,as received by the oflice on O3.O4.2O25, the respondent No.4-Sub-Registrar has issued Lr.No 318/SRO/QTB/2O2\ dated O3.O4.2O25 informing that the registration of any property cannot be stopped unless zrny order of stafzzs quo or injunction from the competent Cour-t is received and inforrned the petitioner No. 1 to produce any orders from the competent Court to 4 \ WP No.13647 of 2025 SK, J \. enable the office to take further action in the matter. In view of the said letter, the petitioners have to produce the orders from the competent Court before the respondent No.4 and as such, the representation of the petitioners dated 24.03.2025 has already been considered by the respondent No.4 and there is no need to issue further direction to the respondent No.4 to consider the said representation of the petitioners

6. As per the Registration Act, 1908, the respondent No.4 cannot stop any registration unless the said lands are included in the prohibited lisr under Section 22 of the Registration Act or any orders from the competent Civil Court for not to make anv rcgislration or a-lienation. In the instant case, thc regislering authoritv i.e., respondent No.4, has issued endorsement on thc representation of the petitoner No.l datecl

24.O3.2025 Lr.No.318/SRO/QTB/2025 clated 03.O4.2025. The said letter issued by the respondent No.4 is in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908 and the same needs no ) SK, J WP No. 13647 of 2025 interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 4

7. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs

8. Miscel[aneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASS]STANT REGJETRAR r,./ Y SECTION OFFICER Hyderabad. [OUT]

1. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at 2. One CC to SRI S.S R.MURTHY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies v- To SA TJ ,! I I oR lrlE ,s rAl o () 2 g JUr. 2U5 a,( / j, HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 ORDER WP.No.13647 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. *Sd b k. €