Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

K Hemachandra Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 8942 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8942 AP
Judgement Date : 26 September, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

K Hemachandra Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 September, 2024

 APHC010372672024
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                             [3328]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

           THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
                 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                   PRESENT

    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
                          PRASAD

                       WRIT PETITION NO: 19179/2024

Between:

   1. K HEMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O K. KESAVULU REDDY, HINDU,
      RESIDING AT P. KOTHUR VILLAGE, PANTRAMPALLE POST,
      CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P.

                                                                 ...PETITIONER

                                      AND

   1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY,    STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT,
      AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

   2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION
      DEPARTMENT, CHITTOOR CITY, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

                                                           ...RESPONDENT(S):

      Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased topleased to issue an Order, direction, proceedings or Writ more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
2nd respondent not implementing the Decree and Judgment passed in
O.S.No. 419/2009 dt. 06-04-2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Chittoor is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violation of Article 14,21
and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd
respondent to implement the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.
419/2009 dt. 06-04-2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor
and to pass
                                              2


Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. TRIMOORTHY K G

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri Shaik Afzal Mohammad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.G. Trimoorthy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Stamps & Registration.

2. Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Stamps & Registration has submitted the Written Instruction furnished by the District Registrar, dated 13.09.2024. Copy of the Written Instruction is also furnished to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner. This Written Instruction is taken on record.

3. Para No.4 of the Written Instruction would indicate that the Registrar is ready to implement the Decree, if the procedure stipulated under Sub-section (2) of Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, is followed. The procedure contemplated in the said provision of law is that the respective Court which has passed the Decree shall send a copy of its decree to the Officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered, and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.

4. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Section 26 (k) (i) of the Registration Act, 1908, which empowers the Registration Authority to cancel the instrument in terms of the Decree passed by the Civil Court, if this Court issued such Order.

5. However, it is noticed by this Court that the Decree was passed by the Civil Court on 06.04.2010 in O.S.No.419 of 2009 and there is a gap of more than 14 years from the date of passing of the Decree. Since the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court invoking Section 26 (k) (i) of the

Registration Act, 1908, this Court is not inclined to invoke such power to entertain this Writ Petition, since the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court after more than 14 years.

6. In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed, as being devoid of any merit. However, the Writ Petitioner is at liberty to approach the Competent Court for seeking a direction under Sub-Section (2) of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. The Competent Court may deal with such Application, if filed, in accordance with law.

7. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No Order as to Costs.

8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this Order.

______________________________________ (GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J) Dt: 26.09.2024 JKS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION No. 19179 OF 2024

26.09.2024

JKS

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter