Vojjela Vishnuvardhan vs K Venkatesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 620 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
                THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
               I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 in/& W.A.No.174 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

       Heard Mr. Vijay B. Paropkari, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of Mr. A.Ganesh Raj, learned counsel for the appellants.


2.     I.A.No.1 of 2023 has been filed by the appellants seeking

leave to file the related writ appeal.


3.     I.A.No.2 of 2023 has been filed to condone the delay of 1350

days in filing the related writ appeal.


4.     Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 24.04.2019

passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.6661 of

2019 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.

5. Order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.04.2019 reads as

under:

This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to declare the inaction of the Respondents 1 and 2 in considering and disposing of the representation of the Petitioner dated 14.02.2019 for implementing the decree and ::2::

judgment in O.S.No.280 of 2007, dated 06.05.2008, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal in the Register Books, E.C etc., of the Respondent No.1 as bad in law and violative of Rule 26 (k) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act 1908 and consequently, direct the Respondents 1 and 2, to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated 14.02.2019 for implementing the decree and judgment in O.S.No.280 of 2007, dated 06.05.2008, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal, in the Register Books, E.C etc., of the Sub- Registrar, Quthbullapur/Respondent No.1.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondents 1 to 5 and perused the record.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed representation on 14.02.2019 before the respondents 1 and 2 to incorporate in the Register/Books the outcome of the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.280 of 2007, dated 06.05.2008, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal. However, no action has been taken by the respondents 1 and 2.

4. As per the submissions made by both the sides and the material placed on record, it is seen that there is no denial of the petitioner submitting a representation dated 14.02.2019 to the Sub-Registrar, Medchal, Medchal Malkajgiri District/respondent No.2 herein to incorporate the decision rendered by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal in ::3::

O.S.No.280 of 2007, dated 06.05.2008 in the relevant books including E.C, etc., maintained by the Sub-Registrar, Quthbullapur, Medchal Malkajgiri District/respondent No.1.

5. In the course of submissions, it is not substantiated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that any action is being taken on the representation dated 14.02.2019. When an application is filed before the authorities to take some action, the same is required to be disposed of in terms of governing regulations.

6. Under these circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to dispose of the representation dated 14.02.2019, submitted by the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

6. Though a view may be taken that proceedings under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be converted into

execution proceedings, nonetheless from a careful perusal of the

order of the learned Single Judge what is discernible is that learned

Single Judge has directed the Sub-Registrars (respondents No.1 and

2 in the writ petition) to consider the representation

dated 14.02.2019 of respondent No.1 (writ petitioner). The ::4::

representation was submitted in the backdrop of the facts narrated

by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 3 and 4 supra.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants

had purchased the land in question; following the aforesaid

decision of the learned Single Judge, respondent No.1 has filed a

contempt case; and out of fear of contempt, respondents No.2 and

3 (Sub-Registrars) have removed the names of the appellants from

the land register to incorporate the name of respondent No.1.

8. If the appellants are aggrieved by any such action of the

authorities, it is open to them to avail their remedy in accordance

with law, but we see no good reason to interfere with the direction

of the learned Single Judge as contained in the order

dated 24.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.6661 of 2019.

9. Therefore, we decline to grant leave to the appellants to file

the related writ appeal and to condone the delay of 1350 days in

filing the same. I.A.Nos.2 of 2023 and 3 of 2023 are accordingly

dismissed.

::5::

10. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 07.02.2023 LUR