Smt. Madigalker Lalitha, v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26391 of 2017 DATED : 08.08.2017 Between :

Smt Madigalker Lalitha W/o.Vasanth Kumar, Aged 62 yrs, Occu : House wife, R/o.1271, N.Portage Ave, Palatine, II 60067, Rep., by her GPA holder, Sri M.Suresh Kumar S/o.M.Ashok Kumar, Aged 26 yrs, Occu : Business, R/o.H.No.120/3, LIG, KPHB, Hyderabad ..

Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department, O/o.Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others.

.. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26391 of 2017 ORDER :

Heard.

2.

Petitioner claims to be the wife of late M.Vasanth Kumar, who died on 24.07.1996 at PEORIA COUNTY, ILLINOIS, USA. He was survived by petitioner and three children. During the life time, of her husband, he purchased house bearing No.2-3-50, Mangalpet, Narayanakhed, Sangareddy. The grievance of the petitioner is Sri M.Damodar (6th respondent) the brother of her husband colluded with the Gram panchayat officials and got inserted his name in the place of her husband, and he is now trying to dispose of the property to third parties. Therefore, petitioner filed objections before Sub-Registrar, Narayanakhed on 28.07.2017 requesting him not to entertain any type of deeds in respect of the above property that may be presented by M.Damodar.

3.

There is no provision made in the Registration Act, wherein, the Registrar can entertain any objection petition, even before the document is presented for registration. Furthermore, it appears from the material papers enclosed to the writ petition (Annexure P-6), that corrections were made in the concerned record reflecting the name of 6th respondent. If that is so, no direction can be issued to the registering authority not to entertain the document. If petitioner has any grievance regarding wrong corrections made in the revenue records and that illegally 6th respondent is resorting to

- 3 - alienate the property, she has to work out her remedies as available in law.

4.

Thus, no direction as sought for can be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out her remedies as available in law. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 8th August, 2017 Rds