No stay can be granted on Land Conservancy proceedings based on a rejection order under Transfer of Registry Rules, preserving the right to challenge the latter.

J U D G M E N T

Ext.P13 is an Order passed by the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar, which rejected the petitioner’s claim for Transfer of Registry in terms of Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules .

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. Perused the records.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is enough material to show that the petitioner is in possession of the subject property from 1970 onwards, adverse to the title of the real owner. In such circumstances, his claim under Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules ought to have been recognized.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that proceedings in terms of the Land Conservancy Rules have already been initiated against the petitioner. Notices have been issued in Form A, Form B, Form C and Form CC, calling upon the petitioner to vacate. These proceedings have never been subjected to any challenge by the petitioner. Instead, the petitioner chose to challenge the rejection order in their application for effecting transfer of Registry. The application was originally dismissed by the competent authority, challenging which the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which culminated in Ext.P11 judgment. By Ext.P11, the land conservancy proceedings were stayed, and the competent authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim under Rule 28 . It is, accordingly, that the impugned Ext.P13 Order has been passed. The learned Senior Government Pleader would emphatically submit that, in the absence of any challenge to the land conservancy proceedings, such proceedings are not liable to be stayed by this Court. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has got an appellate remedy as against Ext.P13 in terms of Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules before the District Collector.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as also, the learned Senior Government Pleader, this Court finds that the proceedings in terms of the Land Conservancy Act and Rules are not liable to be stayed, under the guise of a rejection Order under the Transfer of Registry Rules . It is relevant to note that various proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the Land Conservancy Rules and notices in Form A, Form B, Form C and Form CC were issued and the petitioner has been called upon to vacate the property. The same were not subjected to any challenge, so far. In such circumstances, the petitioner’s prayer to stay all further proceedings under the Land Conservancy Rules cannot be acceded to.

6. In so far as Ext.P13 is concerned, the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue necessary appellate remedy in terms of Rule 18 , or such other provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules . In case, the petitioner prefers any such application, the same will be considered by the competent authority expeditiously, in accordance with law. The right of the petitioner to challenge the land conservancy proceedings in accordance with law will also stand reserved. No further relief is liable to be granted in the Writ Petition.

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition will stand closed.