Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 7776
2024:APHC:5318 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 32148 OF 2023 Between:
1. NALLAMALLI BHEEMESWARA REDDY S/o N. Satyanarayana Reddy Aged 50 years, Occ Business, D. No. 3-34-3/4, Perraju Pet, Kakinada, Kaldnada District, Andhra Pradesh.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Represented by its Principal Secretary Stamps Registration Department, TuUuru, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Sub-Registrar Office of the Sub-Registrar Government of Andhra Pradesh Peddapuram, Peddapuram Mandal Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The District Registrar Kakinada District Kakinada, Near Collector Office Kakinada.
4. The Union Bank of India (formerly Andhra Bank)
Represented by its Chief Manager Bhimavaram Branch West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh
5. Smt. Karri Sarojini Devi, W/o Late KV Krishna Reddy Aged 78 years, R/o D. No. 3-25, Vijaya Gardens, Kakinada - 533005, Andhra Pradesh
6. Smt. Nallamilli Lakshmi Rajyam D/o late KV Krishna Reddy Aged 60 years, W/o NaUamilli Seshareddy R/o D. No. 2-23-25, Ladies Hostel Road, Venkata Nagar, Kakinada - 533003, Andhra Pradesh
7. Sri. Karri Tirumala Reddy S/o Late KV Krsihna Reddy Aged 58 years, R/o D. no. 3-25, Vijaya Gardens, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh - 533005
8. Sri. Karri Srinivas S/o Late KV Krishna Reddy Aged 56 years, R/o D. No. 3-25, Vijaya Gardens Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh- 533005, ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)
The Court made the following: ORDER
2024:APHC:5318 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.32148 OF 2023
ORDER:
The short grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd Respondent-Sub-Registrar in withholding the documents vide Nos.753/2016, 754/2016, 755/2016 and 756/2016 all dated 03.03.2016 presented before him for registration by the 4th Respondent-Bank pursuant to the e-auction conducted by the Bank, in respect of all that land forming part of Town survey No.2- 8-439, admeasuring 36,664.84 Sq. yards in total situated at Old Peddapuram, Kakinada District (Erstwhile East Godavari District), on extraneous considerations and ignoring the compromise recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1614 and 1615 of 2018.
2. Heard Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner participated in the e-auction conducted by the 4th respondent- Bank for realization of the decretal amount. The said auction has been questioned by the original borrower on the ground that, the bank has devaluated the land sought to be auctioned by filing a
2 RC, J writ petition vide W.P.No.8979 of 2016 to stall the e-auction. He further submitted that, this Court passed an elaborate order setting aside the auction proceedings with a direction to the 2nd respondent-Sub-Registrar to cancel the registered documents in favor of the petitioner with further direction to the 4th respondent- bank to refund the sale consideration together with interest. The said order has been assailed by the bank before the Hon’ble Apex Court and got filed Civil Appeal No.1614 and 1615 of 2018 and pending adjudication of the said appeal, the 4th respondent-Bank and the legal representatives of the original borrowers entered into a compromise and thereby terms of compromise was recorded by way of a tripartite agreement and taking into consideration of the same, the Hon’ble Apex Court recording the tripartite agreement disposed of the appeal while taking the settlement on record dated 08.11.2023. He further submitted that, the registration authority, after cancellation of the sale deeds, has entered in the Encumbrance Certificate that the registered documents have been cancelled. In spite of submitting a representation dated 02.12.2023 whereby the orders of the Apex Court have been enclosed, the sub-registrar is not releasing the documents which are registered in favor of the petitioner. As such, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the counter, submitted that, pursuant to the directions
3 RC, J passed by this Court in W.P.No.8979 of 2016, the registering authority has recorded as documents have been cancelled and entered into the Encumbrance Certificate and thereby given the documents to the petitioner. He further submitted that the terms of compromise were not placed before the sub-registrar along with the representation. Without there being any documents before the sub- registrar, releasing the documents does not arise. As such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, along with the representation, the petitioner has enclosed the copies of the High Court orders and Supreme Court orders and now the sub-registrar cannot say that the petitioner has not submitted any documents. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to place all the documents in support of his claim including the tripartie agreement and liberty may be given to the said effect.
6. Perused the material available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the auction conducted by the bank has been set aside by this Court in W.P.No.8979 of 2016 wherein the bank preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court vide Civil Appeal No.1614 and 1615 of 2018. On perusal of the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it goes to show that the par
