O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

‘To issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing a Letter in Rc.No.3294/2012/E1 dated 29th may 2013 requesting the 4th respondent to keep the earlier instructions of the 1stand 2ndrespondents in Lr.Rc.No.3294/2012/E1 dated 14th March 2013 and D.Dis.No.39/2011/E1 dated 8th June 2011 respectively in abeyance until further communication and the instructions to the 4th respondent not to take up any transactions in Sy.Nos.140/4 to 140/12 of Chinagaidla Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious and vexatious apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2ndrespondent to withdraw the impugned communication in Rc.No.3294/2012/E1 dated 29th May 2013 and forbid the respondents 1 to 3 from ever issuing such communications and to direct the 4th and 5th respondents not refuse any transactions relating to the land covered by R.S.Nos.140/4 to 140/12 of Chinagadila Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances…’

2. This Court has heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner No.2 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner along with others purchased land covered by R.S.No.140/4 to 140/12 of ChinagaidlaVillage. The petitioners claim title to the property and also recognition of their rights by virtue of the orders of this Court in W.A.Nos.914 and 958 of 2002. The flow of title under the Estate Abolition Act etc., was recognized by the Court and upheld as per them. Thereafter, a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner and others. Pursuant to the orders of the Court, proceedings were issued deleting the property from section 22-Aof the Registration Act. Thereafter, for reasons best known, the impugned letters were issued on 29.05.2013 directing the Joint Sub-Registrar to keep the earlier instructions dated 14.03.2013 and 08.06.2011 in abeyance. Learned senior counsel points out that against the order in W.A.Nos.914 and 958 of 2002, no Special Leave Petition has been filed and the order of the Court has become final. He points out that despite adequate time being granted, the State could not confirm if an appeal has been actually filed. He asserts that even as on date, no Special Leave Petition filed and that the order of the Division Bench therefore attained finality. It is therefore contended that as the proceedings of the Collector dated 08.06.2011 and 30.01.2013 are issued pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Joint Collector does not have power to issue the further directions, which are now impugned.

4. In reply to this, learned Government Pleader argues the matter at length and points out that as stated in the counter, since there are serious issues of fraud etc., action was taken to protect the land by issuing the two impugned letters. It is also pointed out that the issue about rough patta being genuine or not has not been considered by the authorities before passing the impugned orders. The authority of the Settlement Officer to exercise power under section 3-D is also raised as an issue. It is also pointed out that the petitioners or the predecessors in title did not also file necessary declarations under section 6 of ULC Act, which would show that they had no right over the property. He therefore urged that in view of the serious issues which are involved and which are highlighted in the counter affidavit filed, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Registration argues in line with what is stated in his counter, but points out that no document is yet pres