Venna Rama Krishna Rao, S/o. Late Sd v. Venkaiah, Aged about Bl years, Occ. Reted. Employee, Rl/o. H.No

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3'd respondent not deleting entries in the official records and website of registered Agreement of sale deed Document bearing No.29B5 of 1996, dated 17.08.1996, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to delete entries in respect of Registered Agreement of sale deed Document bearing No. 2985 of 1996, dated 17.08.1996, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumsta,rces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to delete entries in respect of Registered Agre:ment of sale deed Document bearing No.2985 of 1996, dated 17.08.1996, pendirrg disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l TO 3: AGP FOR STAMPS AND Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - The Court made the following: ORDER REGISTRATION THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SARATH WRIT PEIITION No. 32L92 0F 20.22 ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is hled questioning the action of the respondent-Registration authority in not deleting the entries in the ofhcial records in respect of agreement of sa-le deed bearing document No.2985 of 1996, dated

17.08.1996 and sought a direction to the Registration authority to delete the entries in respect of the said Agreement of Sa-le from the official records and website.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistalt Gover.nment Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the official respondents and perused the record a.) The personal notice sent to the unofficial respondent No.4 by the learned Counsel for the petitioners was returned with an endorsement as 'Addressee left without instructions' and the sarne arnorlnts to deemed service of notice to the respondent No.4. 2 sr(J trtl? No.32192-2022

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners woul(r. submit that the husband of the petitioner No.1 namely ll.Subba Rao uras the owner and possessor of house bearing No.26-137 l()1d House No.16-7l14), PlotNo.14, Sy.No.45, admeasurirrg, to an extent of 242.50 Sq.yards, situated at Sarada Nagar, Safilguda, Malkajgiri Mandal, N{edchal- Malkajiri District.

5. The iearned Counsel for the petition er s lt'ould further subnrit that during the year, 1996 the hur;band of the petitioner No.1 obtained a hand loan of Rs' 1,1'i0,O00/- from the re:spondent No.4 herein ar-rd exer;uted a Registered Agreement of Sale in favour of the res,pondent No.4 vide C,rcument No.2985 of 1996. Thereafter, the respondent \o.4 filed a suit against the husband of the petitioner No.1 for specific performance in O.S.1,o.597 of 1998 on ttre lile of the I-Additional Senior Civ-l Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ilyderabad for execution of Sale Deel basing on the said Registered Agreement of Sale and the said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent No.'1. Being 3 SK,J WP No.32192 2O22 aggrieved by the same, husband of the petitioner No.1 filed Appeal Suit No.274O of 2OO4 before this Court and during the pendency of the said appeal suit, husband of the petitioner No.1 was bxpired. After hearing both sides, the said Appeal Suit was allowed on O7.O3.2O17 by setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2004 passed in O.S.No.S9T of 199g in so far as the specific performance, however, directed the petitioners, who were the appellants, to pay arr a_rnount of Rs. 15,00,000/- together with interest @ l2o/, per annum to the respondent No.4 and accordingly the petitioners have deposited the amount as directed by this Court and the respondent No-4 also withdrawn the said amount. The Judgment and Decree passed by this Court in A.S.No.2740 of 2OO4 became Iinal and the issue between the petitioners and the respondent No.4 was stands resolved.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, subsequent to the deposit of amount by 4 SK,J WP L'o.!t2192 2022 them, the petitioners requested the respondent No.4 for return of the original sale deed, pronote, cheqtr.es, etc., which were leanded over by husband of the petitioner No.1. Howr:',,er, the respondent No.4 did not :espond, therefore thi: petitioners got issued legal NoLices on 15.04.2021 and 16.06.2022 to the respondent No.4 requesting him to handover the original docum,'lnts and also to execute the cancellation of Agreement of Sale deed bearin6l No.2985 of 7996 dated 17.08.1996 In spite of the receipt of said notices, the responder-rt No.'l did not come foru,arrl for returning the original docum,lnts and lor executitrg of cancellation of Agreement of Sale. Having ve:lecl with the attitude of the respondent No.4, the petitioner No.1 made a representation to the respondenl. No.2 on O4.O4.2O22 requesting to delete the entries in thr: office record/official records about the said agreement ol sale. In response thereto, the res;pondent No.3 in its letter No.176/SRO, MALKAJIGIRI2O(\2, dated Ol.O6.2O2t2 <lirected the petitioners to obtain zr specific i i I I I I I 5 SK,J WP No.32192 2022 order from the Court to cancel the document No.2985 of L996 from the records and in view of the szune/ instant writ petition is filed. Since the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.4 ended in Appeal Suit, the respondent No.3 could have deleted the entries in the official records. Learned Counsel for the petitioners requested to direct the Registration Authority to deiete the entries in respect of suit scheduie property from the officia_l records and website by allowing the writ petition. 7 The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamp and Registrati.ons has not disputed the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners with regard to the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.4 and also not disputing the Judgment and Decree dated O7.O3.2OLT passed by this Court in A.S.No.274O of 2OO4, but stating that no specific direction has given in the Judgment in A.S.No.2740 of 2OO4 about the cancellation of the 6 SK,J WP No.3 2192 -2022 Agreement cf Sale dated 17 'OB'1996 betrvr:en the husbald of d-re petitioner No.1 and the respond')nt No'4 and requeste'<l to pass appropriate orders' Aft,e:' hearing both sides, this Court i'; of the 8 considered view that the Agreement of Sale bearing No.2985 of 1996 dated 17.08. 1996 is the sub-je<t matter in O.S.No.S97 of 1998 on the file of I-Additionrrl Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy and the s:1me was decreed in favour of the respondent No 4 he rei'n ald thereafter siiilne was set aside by this Court vide Judgment rt:rd Decree in A.S.No.274O of 2004, dated

07.o3.20t',7 g. Admitte dly, this Court passed Judgmet-rt and Decree in A.S.No.121'40 of 2OO4 on07.O3.Ol7 by setting aside the Juclgment and Decree dated24.O2.2OO4 in O'S'.rlo'597 of lggS or the file of Additional Senior Civli Judge, L.B.Nagar, 'rlyderabad and d,irected the petitione'rs herein to pay an ilmount of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the respondent 7 SI(,J WP No.32192 2O22 No.4 herein with interest @ l2o/o per arnum. Accordingly, the petitioners have deposited the sajd arnount before this Court and according to the petitioners, the same was withdrawn by the respondent No.4.

10. In the above circumstances, the subject document i.e. Agreement of Sa,le bearing document No.2985 of 1996 is not in existence and the respondent No.4 herein not appeared in spite of service of notice to deny the averments of the writ petition. Therefore, the Registration authorities have to delete entries in respect of said Agreement of Sale bearing No.2985 of 1995, dated { (

17.O8.1996 from the records and the official website.

11. In view of the above Iindings, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent-Registration authorities to delete the entries in respect of Agreement of Sale No.2985 of 1996 dated 17.08 .1996 for the property bearing H.No.26-137 (Old No.L6-T /t4), plot No.14 8 SK,J wP No. )2192-2022 situated in S;y.No.45, admeasuring 242.5O Sq.Yrrds 203 Sq.Meters with RCC plinth area of 1200 Sq.Feet, situated at Saradanagar, Safilguda, lt{alkajgiri Municipalitv and Mandal, Ranga District from th: records and olficial rvebsite, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of r:opy of this order.

12. Miscellaneous applications pending, iI any, in this Writ Petrtion, shall stand closed. No orrler as to co sts. //TRUE coPY/, 'o'" ",n;liSi.HHBlSHiA : - sEcloN oFFtcER \t. i ', . -n" Principal Secretary' Stamps and Registration\Df partment' Secretariat' , +i3 gflln:i 3 :iff: I"J?Jgi3lno n" gi't'atio n D Jpa rtment' r/ed char' I :g;S,t;r$$q$Ug*-++i,ffil gti I, ; :::'.T ;:' " Two CD CoP'es Cr PSK. BS ry- I { a SrAt6' 7 Mfr J-, * i, s'\ ',,[\ ir. ^,.. - 1'" .'+ HIGH COURT DATED:0810412025 ORDER WP.No.32192 of 2022 \ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {n,\ q