MARADANI SRINIVASA PRABHU Vs. A VANI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of Order, dated 28-10-2010, passed by this Court in WP. No. 23479 of 2010, by the Respondents.

(2.) The Petitioners herein filed the above-noted Writ Petition for a Mandamus to set aside Order, dated 16-09-2010, passed by Respondent No. 1, whereby Respondent No. 1 has directed annulment of various registered sale deeds executed in favour of the Petitioners. This Court, while allowing the said Writ Petition held that Respondent No. 1 is not vested with the unilateral power of annulment of the registered documents and placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in K.V. Sudha Rani and Ors. v. The Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalgiri Urban Development Authority (VGTM-UDA), Vijayawada, rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Ors., 2008 3 ALT 760, wherein it was held that a person, who seeks cancellation of a registered document, has two remedies available under law viz., (1) to seek invalidation of the registered sale deed by approaching the competent Court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; or (2) to seek cancellation of the registered document by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 (k) (i) of the Rules framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Act. It was further held that except these two remedies, No. person or authority has the right to unilaterally invalidate a registered sale deed on any ground. On the above premises, the Writ Petition was allowed by setting aside the Order of unilateral annulment of registered sale deeds, however, with liberty to the Respondents to initiate appropriate action, in accordance with law, for annulment of the registered sale deeds. Purporting to take fresh action, Contemnor No. 1- District Collector has issued proceedings, dated 15-02-2011, directing Contemnor No. 2- Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the registered sale deeds so as to enable the sub-Registrar to change the documents as A.W.D. in Revenue records. Feeling aggrieved by this Order, the Petitioner filed this Contempt Case alleging that the said Order is in blatant violation of Order, dated 28-10-2010, passed by this Court in WP. No. 23479 of 2010.

(3.) In compliance with the direction of this Court, all the contemnors were present.