M.S. Rama Krishna Raju vs Syed Mohamood And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2720 Tel

          HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
               SRI M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

                                     AND

         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR


                       WRIT APPEAL No.449 of 2021

JUDGMENT:            (per      the   Hon'ble    the   Acting   Chief        Justice
                   Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao).


      In this Writ Appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dt.18-

02-2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.3773 of 2021.


2.    In the said interim order, the learned Single Judge had directed the

3rd respondent herein not to receive and register any deeds in Sy.Nos.7,

115, 116, 118, 142, 63, 80, 100, 102, 141, 112, 163, 124, 78, 81, 48, 122,

110, 25 and 112 of Hydernagar village, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, pending

disposal of the Writ Petition.

3. In the Writ Petition, 1st respondent had mentioned about

O.S.No.267 of 1980 and obtaining of a preliminary decree by him on

29-10-1987. It is stated that he submitted a letter to the

3rd respondent on 02-08-2019 requesting him not to register any

document in the above survey numbers and he apprehended that certain

registrations would take place since 3rd respondent had refused to stop

registrations unless a Court order is obtained by the

1st respondent.

4. The learned Single Judge granted interim stay as prayed for,

without assigning any reasons and without noticing the extent of claim of

the 1st respondent in O.S.No.267 of 1980 i.e. 14/104 share and also the ::2::

large number of survey numbers mentioned in the affidavit and petition

filed in W.P.No.3773 of 2021 without even giving extent of land in the

said survey numbers in which 1st respondent is interested.

5. It is not open to a private citizen like the 1st respondent to address

letter to the 3rd respondent asking him to stop registration in any survey

number, and only the State can do so by invoking Section 22-A of the

Registration Act, 1908 in certain situations mentioned therein.

6. Nothing prevented the 1st respondent from securing an injunction

from the Civil Court restraining alienation of properties in an appropriate

civil suit or in the existing civil suits, which are referred to above.

Without doing so, he ought not to have invoked the jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and then secured this

order behind the back of the appellant.

7. In this view of the matter, we find that the impugned order cannot

be sustained.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order

dt.18-02-2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.3773 of 2021 is set aside.

No costs.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, HACJ

___________________ T.VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 22.09.2021 ::3::

Vsv