Bejawada Gabriyelu, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * WRIT PETITION No.23096 of 2015 BETWEEN Bejawada Gabriyelu.

... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 03.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 1.

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

No 2.

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

No

3.

Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

No ORDER:

Petitioner states that the Joint Sub-Registrar-138, Vijayawada, has registered the sale deeds executed by him and given pending Nos.3412 and 3413 to the said documents and that the said documents are not yet released and no communication is sent to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for the relief as prayed for.

2. Instructions of the learned Government Pleader shows that the R.S.No.322 admeasuring Ac.1.30 cents is classified as "Bandi Dari" and an extent of Ac.0.57 cents in R.S.No.322/1 was originally assigned to one Smt. Mandapati Rojanamma and subsequently, action under Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 was initiated by issuing notice and after considering the explanation, resumption orders were passed, which is stated to be pending in an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada.

3. Though the aforesaid instructions are issued by the Tahsildar to the learned Government Pleader, the Joint Sub-Registrar, who has to register the documents has not intimated any reasons to the petitioner as to why the documents are kept pending. The Joint SubRegistrar, third respondent, therefore, shall forthwith communicate the reasons to the petitioner as to why the documents are kept pending, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, so that the petitioner would be in a position to take appropriate further action in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 3, 2015 DSK