B. Suresh Yadav vs Mangipuri Sundara Lakshmi
2023 Latest Caselaw 1437 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                   WRIT APPEAL No.394 of 2023

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard Mr. V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel

appearing        for    Mr.     V.Satyanarayana              Prasad,    learned

counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.Sridhar, learned

counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner.                           We have

also heard Ms. Chandana Adamala, learned Assistant

Government Pleader, Revenue Department (Stamps &

Registration) for respondents No.2 and 3.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated

27.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing

of W.P.No.36420 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the

writ petitioner.

3. Respondent No.1 filed the related writ petition

assailing the inaction of Sub-Registrar, Malkajgiri,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District in considering her

representations dated 18.06.2019 and 26.08.2022 with

regard to rectification of her name in the encumbrance

certificate.

4. Without entering into the merits of the case, learned

Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the

Sub-Registrar to consider and dispose of the

representations of respondent No.1 dated 18.06.2019 and

26.08.2022 in accordance with law within a period of four

weeks.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits

that appellant was arrayed as respondent No.3 in the writ

proceedings. Appellant has a claim to the land in respect

of which respondent No.1 sought the relief. In this

connection, though suit and first appeal preferred by the

appellant have been dismissed, the related second appeal

is pending before this Court. Had an opportunity been

granted to the appellant, all these facts would have been

brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge which are

relevant for a full and complete adjudication of the writ

petition.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent

No.1 submits that order of the learned Single Judge cannot

be said to be adverse to the appellant. Learned Single

Judge had only directed the Sub-Registrar to consider the

representations of respondent No.1. However, as a matter

of fact, learned counsel has submitted that following the

order of the learned Single Judge, Sub-Registrar had

considered the representations of respondent No.1 but has

rejected the same.

7. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the matter

should be remitted back to the file of the learned Single

Judge having roster to rehear the matter and thereafter

pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

8. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order dated

27.09.2022 and remand the matter back to the learned

Single Judge having roster to rehear the writ petition and

thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with

law.

9. Writ appeal is accordingly allowed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 28.03.2023 vs