ORDER S. ANANDA REDDY J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus declaring the letter bearing No. Re. B. 823 of 2004, dated September 29, 2004 issued by the first respondent to the second respondent and the check-slip, dated May 12, 2005 issued by the second respondent as illegal and void and consequently direct the second respondent to register the sale deed executed and presented for registration by the third respondent in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he purchased an extent of Acs. 9-65 cents of land in Survey Nos. 146, 149, 150 and 151 situated at Pala Kothapalli Village, Kotavuratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, belonging to the third respondent, who purchased the said property under the registered sale deed, dated October 12, 2000. According to the petitioner, the third respondent had acquired the said property with his personal earnings, therefore it is the self-acquired property of the third respondent. But, the first respondent treating the said property as the property belonging to the father of the third respondent, who is said to be a defaulter, addressed the impugned letter to the second respondent not to register the property in question and also not to release the document. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. After the repeated adjournments, a counter has been filed by the first respondent stating that the property in question was purchased by the third respondent with the earnings of his father, who is stated to be a defaulter, and the third respondent, as legal heir of his father, has pious obligation to clear the amounts due to the department. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defaulter is the father of the third respondent and he is very much alive, therefore the question of treating the petitioner, as legal heir of the defaulter and having pious obligation to clear the amounts due to the department does not arise. At the time of hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes is directed to show the power under which the first respondent can issue the impugned letter. At the time of hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes is directed to show the power under which the first respondent can issue the impugned letter. The learned counsel, though referred to section 17A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act") to sustain the action of the first respondent, a perusal of the said provision does not show that the first respondent is empowered to issue the impugned letter to the second respondent preventing registration of the property in question. In view of the above legal position, as the first respondent is not given any power under the provisions of the Act to issue any letters, the impugned letter issued by the first respondent to the second respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned letter, dated October 7, 2005, issued by the first respondent to the second respondent and the check-slip, dated May 12, 2005, issued by the second respondent are set aside and the second respondent is directed to register the document presented for registration by the third respondent in respect of the property in question and release the same, if it is, otherwise, in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.