ORDER This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside letter, vide Rc.No.3037/2006/E3, dated 20.7.2012, of respondent No.2, whereby he has requested respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to approve/ release layout and building plans, if any, submitted by the petitioner until further communication. 2. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 for alienation of the Government land on payment of market value for construction of cottages "for aged people and orphans". Respondent No.2 submitted his proposals to respondent No.1 for alienation of Acs.12.51 cents of land in Survey No.92/3 of Endada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, which was a hill poramoboke. Respondent No.2 has informed respondent No.1 that the basic value of the adjoining zeroyiti land is Rs.28.70 lakhs per acre and the prevailing market value is ranging between Rs.40 lakhs and Rs.50 lakhs per acre. 3. Considering the report of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 has issued G.O. Ms. No.1447, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 6.12.2008, for alienation of the above-mentioned extent of land to the petitioner on payment of market value of Rs.45 lakhs per acre. Following the said Government Order, respondent No.2 issued proceedings in Rc.No.3037/20006E2, dated 2.9.2010, allotting the land to the petitioner and authorising the Tahsildar to execute conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, a registered deed of conveyance was executed by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural on 4.10.2010 in favour of the petitioner. On 3.3.2012, respondent No.3 has issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why the allotment of the above-mentioned land shall not be cancelled as it was kept vacant. The petitioner submitted its explanation on 12.3.2012, wherein it has explained the various steps it has taken for developing the land. While no order on the said notice was passed by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has addressed the impugned letter to respondent Nos.4 and 5. 4. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he has sought to justify the impugned letter on various grounds. In the manner this Court is proposing to dispose of the writ petition, it is not necessary to refer to the contents of the counter-affidavit in detail. 5. At the hearing, Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned Counsel representing Sri R.A. Chary, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the land having been allotted to the petitioner under G.O. Ms. In the manner this Court is proposing to dispose of the writ petition, it is not necessary to refer to the contents of the counter-affidavit in detail. 5. At the hearing, Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned Counsel representing Sri R.A. Chary, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the land having been allotted to the petitioner under G.O. Ms. No.1447, dated 6.12.2008, and a registered conveyance deed having been executed in favour of the petitioner by the Tahsildar concerned on behalf of the Government, respondent No.2 has no power or authority to interfere with the right of the petitioner to use the said land for the purposes for which it was allotted. Learned Counsel further submitted that as a registered conveyance deed was also executed, the respondents have no power to interfere with or curtail the rights of the petitioner without getting the registered conveyance deed cancelled by the competent civil Court In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in K.V. Sudha Rani v. Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri UDA, 2008 (4) ALD 545 . 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) valiantly sought to support the impugned communication of respondent No.2. She has invited this Court's attention to the impugned letter, wherein respondent No.2 has referred to the observations made by the Andhra Pradesh Land Allotment Public Accounts Committee in its meeting held on 6.7.2012 and submitted that as the price, at which the alienation was made to the petitioner did not reflect the correct market value, respondent No.2 has addressed the impugned letter pending initiation of proceedings for cancellation of G.O. Ms. No. 1447, dated 6.12.2008. 7. In K.V. Sudha Rani's case (supra), this Court on an analysis of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Registration Act, 1908, held that when once the sale deed is executed in favour of a person, the title in the property passes to such person forthwith and along with it all the interests, which the transferor was then capable of transferring, and the legal incidents thereof also passes to the purchaser. It was further held that the person who seeks cancellation of the registered document has two remedies available to him under law, namely (1) to seek invalidation of the registered document by approaching the competent Court of law under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and (2) to seek cancellation of registered document by following the procedure prescribed under Section 26(k)(i) of the Rules framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Registration Act, 1908. It was further held that except those two remedies, no person or authority has the right to unilaterally invalidate a registered document on any ground. 8. Inasmuch as the stage for consideration as to whether the proposed cancellation of allotment can be sustained in law or not has not been reached, it is unnecessary for this Court to delve into the proposed action of the respondents in this regard. However, it will suffice to observe that so long as the allotment made to the petitioner and the registered sale deed executed in its favour remain in force, none of the respondents has power or authority to interfere with the right of the petitioner to utilise the land for the purposes for which it was allotted and sold. If at all respondent No.2 opines that the allotment itself was vitiated by any illegalities, he can only initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. Till such proceedings are initiated and appropriate orders passed by the competent authority, he has no right to address the impugned letter to respondent Nos.4 and 5. 9. Subject to the above observations, the impugned letter addressed by respondent No.2 is set aside. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP No.29388 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.