1. Samala Narayana Reddy v. 1. The Commissioner and lnspector General

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issuean appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in passing an order of refusal dt. 29.07.2013 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the judgment of this Honble Court reported in 2012 (4) ALD 411. Consequently, direct the Respondent No.2 to complete the process of registration of Deed of Cancellation of Agreement Sale-cum- Power of Attorney. l.A. NO: 1OF 2O13{WPMP. NO:29010 OF 2013 ) Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the cirr umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to complete the process of regist ation of the deed of Cancellation of Revocation of Agreement of Sale cum Gener ;Ll Power of Attorney presented on 21 .05.2013. Pending disposal of the writ petitic r Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: ASST.GP FOR STAMPS ANI) REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT P ON No.23605 of 20 13 ORDER: None appears for the petitioners. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 (respondent No.3 is impleaded as per the Court Order dated 22.11.2018 in WPMP No.32477 of 2013).

2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the 2nd respondent i.e. the loint Sub-Registrar-I, Ranga Reddy District, in passing an order of refusal dated 29.07.2013, as illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to complete the process of registration of Deed of Cancellation of Agreement of Sale- cum-Power of Attorney.

3. The case of the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, in brief, is that they had executed an Agreemen'rt of Sale- cum-General Power of Attorney on 21.04.2005 in favour of Totakura langaiah Yadav and Totakura Srisailam Yadav in respect of property in Survey No.81 situated at Boduppal Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the said document was registered, bearing document No.3737 of 2005. Since, the agreement holders were acting against their wishes, the petitioners intended to cancel the said 2 document and accordingly, approached the 2nd r€: )ondent and presented the document of cancellation for registril' on' The 2nd respondent by the impugned order dated 29.07.201 :i refused to register the document presented by the petitioners :t iting that for cancellation of the document, the consent of both he parties is necessary. Henc€, the present Writ Petition.

4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 29.07.201 :1, shows that the cancellation deed is not signed by both the Princip; /Vendors and Agents/Vendees to complete the transaction, whereas sperC&IG (R&S) Memo No. RC. No.Gene ral I Com I 18492/2009 datetl

30.12.2009 & Circular Memo No.G1/Cam/4028/2010 dated 31 i13.2010 for Cancellation of AGPA, the consent of both the parti€s is necessary. Moreover the judgment mentioned in the document vidt: W.P.No.25983 of 2011, is applicable to that particular transaction. Hor :e, in view of the above circular instruments, the 2nd respondent refl ;ed to register the document under Section 70 of the Registration I :t, as Refusal No.23120 13 dated 29.07.2013.

5. The impugned order specifically mentions that il he petitioners are aggrieved by the same, an appeal lies to the D s :rict Registrar, Ranga Reddy (East) within 30 days from the date of re: :ipt of the said order. However, the petitioners, without availing the said remedy/ had approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the matter, since the petitioners have the efficacious remedy of appeal, this Court is of the view that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the District Registrar concerned. in accordance with law. Since the Writ Petition is pending on the file of this Court since, 2013, if the petitioners file appeal within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be treated as having been filed within limitation. On such appeal being filed, the District Registrar concerned is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six (06) weeks thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

7. Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Commissioner and lnspector General' of Regist " lrtoiamjani Market, HYderabad SD/. U. SUDHA TANT REGIS N OFFICER and StamPs A.P.,

2. The Joint Sub-Registrar - l, R'O' Ranga Reddy (East)' '3::.*:3:",Ji3,.'3PiXF[',Sfl lLff.-#j*ffi:;:333fti j?',:,Iol?'o'o 4. One CC to SRI INENI VENKATA PRASAD' Advocate' IOPUCI 5. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION' High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] C-.).d . -7

6. Two CD CoPies BSK TJ J*s, HIGH COURT DATED:1411112025 .n>-. .. rA t-,i' C) 16ti I2[?6 ORDER WP.No.23605 of 2013 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS --t-:-^ JK5 3olrlze