Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Adapa Jagruthi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.487 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
Adapa Jagruthi W/o. Adapa Prasad,
Hindu, Female, Aged 21 years,
Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No.45-58-7/5/5,
Flat No.202, Sampath Arcade, Narasimha Nagar,
Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District, A.P. and another.
.. Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
(Stamps & Registration Department),
A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. B.P. Raju
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP for Registration & Stamps
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt: 06.08.2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. B.P. Raju, learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This writ appeal is presented against the order and judgment dated
29.01.2021 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.2075 of 2021
filed by the appellants herein.
3. The prayer made in the writ petition is essentially to cancel the registered
sale deed bearing No.1264/2019 dated 07.03.2019.
2 HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.487 of 2021
4. The case projected by the appellants/writ petitioners is that the appellant
No.2/writ petitioner No.2, who is the husband of appellant No.1/ writ petitioner
No.1, is of unsound mind and is suffering from mental ill-health. He had entered
into a development agreement with respondent Nos.5 to 7 in relation to
construction of apartments but the sale consideration was not received from
respondent Nos.5 to 7 and taking advantage of his unsound mind, respondent
Nos.5 to 7, in collusion with respondent No.3, had played fraud in getting the
sale deed executed and registered.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the
learned single Judge was in error in dismissing the writ petition on the ground
that there is alternative remedy available, though availability of alternative
remedy is not a bar to entertain the writ petition. He places reliance on the
judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Captain Paida
Janardhana Reddy (died) per LRs v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported
in 2020 (3) ALT 1 (AP).
6. A perusal of the order of the learned single Judge goes to show that the
learned single Judge had taken into consideration the judgment in Captain
Paida Janardhana Reddy (died) per LRs (supra) and had opined that the
issues involved in the writ petition have to be decided based on evidence and
the affidavit evidence available on record is hardly sufficient to decide the issues.
Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter and without expressing
any opinion on the factual issues involved, the learned single Judge had
dismissed the writ petition reserving liberty to the appellants/writ petitioners to
approach the competent civil court for the relief sought in the writ petition.
7. We wholly agree with the order passed by the learned single Judge.
Though we endorse the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants/writ petitioners that there may not be bar for entertainment of a writ
3 HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.No.487 of 2021
petition despite availability of alternative remedy, in the fact situation, as
presented in the instant case, we do not think it appropriate to exercise the
discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India there being
adequate alternative efficacious remedy available.
8. We find no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned single
Judge and the writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
IBL
