High Court for State of TelanganaWP/38772/2015disposed of no costs

Smt P.Kalpana v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Secretary,

2015-11-30Vilas V.Afzulpurkar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 38772 of 2015 BETWEEN P.Kalpana ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others ...RESPONDENTS Date of Order pronounced: 30.11.2015 ORDER:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order of refusal passed by the fourth respondent.

The pending document of the petitioner bearing P.No.476/15 dated 20.08.2015 was refused registration on the ground that the survey No.303/3 of Tiruchanuru Village of Tirupati Urban Mandal is notified as Government land under Section 22-A of the Registration Act as per the list furnished by the Tahsildar. Petitioner however states that there is no such survey number mentioned in the list and relies upon the lands notified under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Abolition of Inams and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956. Petitioner states that the list issued by the Tahsildar is based upon the notified lands under the aforesaid Act, which does not contain Survey No.303/3. However, the aforesaid issue being purely factual issue, the same has o be verified by the appropriate authority.

3. Since the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order, there is no reason to entertain the writ petition.

4. At this stage, petitioner seeks time to prefer appeal in the interest of justice. Hence, petitioner is granted one week time from today to prefer an appeal before the District Registrar against the said order of refusal before the District Registrar and if such an appeal is preferred the same, shall be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation. Writ petition is accordingly 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 November 30, 2015 LMV