ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos. 4 and 8, who added petitioner properties in the crime No. 245 of 2016 and gave a letter dt 19.03.2019 to the sub register by the 8th respondent as well as inaction of the 4th respondent who did not responded in his representation dt 15.07.2019 is illegal, injustice, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of natural justice and Article 300-A of Indian Constitution and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 4 and 8 made thorough enquire about the subject lands of Ac.5-00 guntas in survey Nos. 167, 168, 175, 167, 168 and 175 situated at Cherla Gouraram Village, Kanagal Mandal of Nalgonda District and delete as it was not subject lands of crime No. 245 of 2016 on the file of 8th respondent and further direct the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to entertain the register deeds by the petitioner in the subject lands by keeping aside the letter dt 19.03.2019 given by the 8th respondent as it was not maintainable or sustainable for the subject lands and to pass.....”

2. Heard Mr. G. L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been inaction and illegality on the part of respondent Nos. 4 and 8 in including the petitioner’s properties in Crime No. 245 of 2016 and in issuing a letter dated 19.03.2019 to the Sub-Registrar, Nalgonda, seeking to restrain transactions in respect of the said properties. It is further submitted that this Court, by order dated 29.07.2019, granted an interim direction holding that the Inspector of Police, Nalgonda Town-I Police Station, was incompetent to issue such directions to the Sub-Registrar, and accordingly restrained the registration of the subject properties pursuant to the impugned communication. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the interim order has effectively redressed the grievance of the petitioner, and therefore prays that the said interim direction be made absolute.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that in Crime No. 246 of 2016, a charge sheet has been filed and the same has been taken on file as C.C. No. 112 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda, and is presently pending trial. It is further submitted that the interim order passed by this Court has been strictly complied with by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, it is prayed that appropriate orders be passed.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the inclusion of his property in Crime No. 245 of 2016 without any discernible nexus to the alleged offence, and the consequential action of the Inspector of Police in addressing a letter to the Sub-Registrar seeking to freeze transactions relating to the said property. This Court, upon consideration of the submissions made and the legal competence of the Investigating Officer, finds that there exists no statutory provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law, which empowers a police officer to unilaterally direct the Sub-Registrar to prohibit or withhold registration of documents pertaining to immovable property.

7. It is well settled that any restriction on the right to deal with property must be traceable to a valid statutory authority. In the absence of such authority, executive instructions or communications cannot override statutory functions of registration authorities under the Registration Act, 1908. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that actions of the State or its instrumentalities must be supported by law and cannot be sustained on mere administrative convenience (see State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1).

8. In the present case, the action of the Inspect