ORDER : This Writ Petition for mandamus is filed to declare the action of respondent No.4 in addressing a letter, dated 10.08.2018, to respondent No.3 – Joint Registrar, Nallapadu of Guntur District, not to alienate the property covered by Sy.No.123 and 124 in Plot No.201, bearing H.No.26-46-137 in an extent of 213.8 Sq. Yards, as illegal and consequently sought direction to respondent No.3 not to abide by the said letter. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for respondent No.4. 3. Originally Mr. Y. Madhusudhana Reddy and Y. Bhupalreddy formed into a partnership firm under the name and style “M/s. Sri Narayana Traders” and did business in selling tobacco. They availed loan from Dhanalakshmi Bank by mortgaging the property in the name of the firm, to the Bank. As they committed default in discharging the said loan amount, it appears that the Bank has sold away the said property that was mortgaged for realization of the loan amount from the said M/s.Sri Narayana Traders. The petitioner has participated in the auction held by the Bank and purchased the said property from the Bank in the year 2013 i.e., on 04.12.2013 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short, “SARFAESI Act”). The Bank has also registered the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said property. So, the petitioner became absolute owner of the said property. The petitioner has also subsequently entered into development agreement with the builder and constructed apartments in the said property and also sold away some flats in it. 4. The Bank has also registered the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said property. So, the petitioner became absolute owner of the said property. The petitioner has also subsequently entered into development agreement with the builder and constructed apartments in the said property and also sold away some flats in it. 4. While so, when the petitioner approached respondent No.3 – Joint Registrar of Nallapadu, Guntur District, for the purpose of selling the leftover flats, in the year 2022, at that time, it was informed by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner that respondent No.4 – the Commercial Tax Officer, Kothapet of Guntur District, has addressed the impugned letter, dated 10.08.2018, stating that M/s. Narayana Traders, who are the dealers on the rolls of Commercial Tax Office of Kothapet, fell in arrears of Rs.37,54,536/- under the CST Act for the period from 2009 to 2010 and that she intends to recover the said arrears of Tax under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short “RR Act”) and thereby requested him not to alienate the said property. 5. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court questioning the legal validity of the impugned letter, dated 10.08.2018, addressed by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3, seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 6. Admittedly, the property that was earlier owned by M/s.Sri Narayana Traders was mortgaged by them to Dhanalakshmi Bank at the time of availing loan. As they committed default in payment of the said loan amount, the Bank has sold away the said property under the SARFAESI Act and the petitioner became successful bidder in the auction that was held and the said property was sold away to the petitioner under the registered sale deed, dated 04.12.2013, executed by the Bank in favour of the petitioner. By virtue of the said sale deed, the petitioner became absolute owner of the said property long back in the year 2013. The petitioner has also, thereafter, entered into development agreement and constructed apartments and sold away some flats in it. As there are few leftover flats, when the petitioner approached respondent No.3 to sell away the said flats in the year 2022, at that time, it was informed to him that the impugned letter, dated 10.08.2018, was addressed to the 3rd respondent by the 4th respondent. 7. As there are few leftover flats, when the petitioner approached respondent No.3 to sell away the said flats in the year 2022, at that time, it was informed to him that the impugned letter, dated 10.08.2018, was addressed to the 3rd respondent by the 4th respondent. 7. The said letter was obviously addressed in the year 2018 after the petitioner has become absolute owner of the property in the year 2013 itself, as discussed supra. Therefore, respondent No.4 cannot prevent the petitioner from disposing of his own property by requesting the 3rd respondent by the impugned letter not to allow the petitioner to alienate the said property, for the purpose of recovering the tax arrears from M/s.Narayana Traders under the RR Act. 8. Further, as can be seen from the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, no such power is conferred on the 4th respondent – Commercial Tax Officer to address any such letter to the Joint Registrar i.e., respondent No.3 not to allow the petitioner, who admittedly became owner of the said property in the year 2013, to alienate the said property. Section 27 of the Act only confers power on the concerned authority to order for provisional attachment of the property and Section 29 of the Act only enables the Commissioner or any authority prescribed to issue notice in writing requiring the person from whom any money is due to the defaulter in payment of the taxes or to any person who holds any money on behalf of the defaulter, not to pay the same to the defaulter and the same may be adjusted by way of recovery of the same towards due amount payable towards arrears of tax by the defaulter. But no power is conferred on the 4th respondent to address any letter or give any direction to the Joint Registrar not to effect registration of the documents or not to allow the owner of the property to alienate the said property. Therefore, the impugned letter that was addressed by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent is without any competence and authority under the A.P.VAT Act. Therefore, it is clearly unsustainable under law. Therefore, the impugned letter that was addressed by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent is without any competence and authority under the A.P.VAT Act. Therefore, it is clearly unsustainable under law. Respondent No.4 ought to have taken appropriate steps under the A.P. VAT Act for recovery of the due amount of tax from M/s.Narayana Traders, who is the defaulter in payment of the said tax, and respondent No.4 cannot prevent the petitioner from alienating his own property. 9. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring the impugned letter addressed by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent is legally unsustainable. As a sequel, there shall be a direction to respondent No.3 not to act upon the said letter, dated 10.08.2018, addressed by respondent No.4 and prevent the petitioner from alienating his property. However, it is made clear that the 4th respondent is at liberty to initiate appropriate action according to law for recovery of the arrears of tax from M/s.Narayana Traders. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.