Kasula tMahalakshmi v. 1. The State of Telangana

l2Smt.Gottimukkula Udayashree,, W/o. G.Veera Reddy aged about 46 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.Dacharram Village, Gummadidala Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. (RRB lo 12 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased Respondent No.6 as per Court Order, dated 19.08.2025 in |.A.No.112025\. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of [t/andamus - a) Declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in receiving, processing and registering the Deed of Cancellation of agreement of .sale -cum- General Power of Attorney, dt. 02-07-2015, presented by the Respondent No.5 and registering it as Doc No.3365/2015 in respect of agricultural land in Sy.Nos. 4851A, 486/A, 4871A, 488/A, 4911A, 108/E, 490/A, 515/A, 4921A, 508/E, admeasuring Ac. 07-01 Guntas situated at Kallakal village, Toopran ft/andal, tMedak District, Telangana State as arbitrary and illegal and not binding on the petitioner, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of lndia and violation of Rule 26 (i) (k) of Registration rules, 1908'.and also violation of decisions rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi case reported in (2010) 15 SCC207. b) To declare the aotion of Respondent No.4 in receiving, processing and registering the Gift Settlement Deed in favour of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 vide Doc Nos. 107612015, 107712015, dt 04-07-2015 in respect of agricultural lands situated in Sy.Nos. 485iA, 486/A, 4871A, 488/A, 4911A, 108/E, 490/A, 515/A, 4921A, 508/E, at Katlakal village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District, Telangana State as arbitrary, illegal and violation of pr,inciples of natural justice,and violation of Articles 14,21 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia and violation of Rule 26(i) (k) of Registration rules, 1908. c). Consequently set aside the Deed of Cancellation of Agreement of --sale--=-- cum --:Generaffio-wer--of -Attorney-dt--O2=07.2015 registered --as Doc.No.3365/2015 in the office of Respondent No.3 and set aside the Gift Settlement deed dt.04-O7-2015 in vide Doc. Nos. 1 07612015 and 107712015 in the office of Respondent No.4. I /.-> |.A.NO:1 OF 2015 (WPMP.NO:40985 OF 201s) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Deed of Cancellation of Agreement of sale - cum-GPA, dt. 02-07-2015 registered in the office of the Respondent No.3 vide Doc No.3365/2015. NO:2 OF 201 NO oF 2015 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to entertain or register any document in respect of land in Sy.Nos.485/A, 486/A, 4871A, 4BB|A, 4911A, 108/E, 490/A, 515/A, 4921A,508/E, admeasuring Ac. 07-01 Guntas situated at Kallakal Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District, Telangana State. l.A. NO: 3 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 40987 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitlon, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 not to alienate and interfere into the possession of the Petitioner in respect of land in Sy.No. 4851A,486/A, 4871A,488/A, 49114, 108iE, 4901A,5151A,4921A,508/E, admeasuring Ac. 07-O1 Guntas situated at. Kallakal Village, Toopran Nlandal, tMedak District. _Counselfsr the Petitioner : SRI A.V-ENKATESH, SENIORCOUNSEL REPRESENTING SRt KOTAGIRI SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : SRI H.RAKESH KUMAR, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S, 8 to 12: SRI M.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 : SRI R.SUSHANTH REDDY The Court made the following ORDER A1t '1(} IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TEI.ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.31699 of 2015 Between: Kasula Mahalakshmi AND Petitioner The State of Telangana, represented by it Principal Secretary, Revenue Department(Stamps & Registration), Hyderabad and eleven others. Respondents ORDER . Heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kotagiri Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Malipeddi Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 7.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the 3'd respondent in registering the Deed of Cancellation of Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 02.07.20t5 in ', l l' .,-, 2 respect of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.7.01 guntas situated in various survey numbers of Kallakal Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District, unilaterally, without issuing any notice and without affording any oppoftunity to the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.7.01 guntas situated in different survey numbers of Kallakal Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. The 5th respondent, who is brother-in-law of the petitioner, approached the petitioner and offered to sell the subject land fOr a sale consideration of Rs.1,63,80,0001-, and accordingly, entered into an agreement of sale-cum-GPA and the same was registered vide Document N0.170312015 and delivered possession of the same.

4. The petitioner fufther contends that from the date of entering into the said agreement with the 5th respondent, who had delivered vacant physical possession of the subject land, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

5. During last week of September, 2015, respondent Nos.6 and 7 tried to destroy the standing crop, when the same was objected by the n r("t a J petitioner, it was stated that the subject property was acquired by them from the 5th respondent by way of a registered deed of settlement dated 04.07.2015. Thereby, he came to know that the deed of cancellation was executed on 01.07.2015 and presented it before the 3'd respondent on 02.07.2015 without the knowledge of the petitioner. On obtaining a copy of the deed of cancellation, the petitioner came to know that the 5th respondent has unilaterally presented the document before the 3'd respondent seeking cancellation of agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession on 24.03.2075. Therefore, being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the official respondents have absolutely no power to cancel the document unilaterally without hearing the petitioner or providing an oppottunity to her. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that Section 26(iXk) of the Registration Rules, 1908 specifically mandates that the Sub- Registrars cannot receive, process and register the cancellation deeds unilaterally, and that the aggrieved party has to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent Civil Coutt .I Ii :: 4 /\

7. Learned Senior counsel, in support of his contentions, relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Thota Ganga Laxmi v/s. Government of Andhra pradest/ and Asset Reconstruction company (rndia) Limited u/s. s.p.velayuthanf, wherein the issue considered was that whether the deed of cancellation of an agreement of sale-cum-GpA along with possession can be cancelled unilaterally by the District Register and whether such registration of cancellation deed is valid in law.

8. on the other hand, the contesting respondent Nos. 5 & 7 filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that the 5h respondent lawfully cancelled the agreement of sale-cum-GPA on 24.03.201s, when it was discovered that it was obtained by way of fraud and misuse of the family relationships. It is further contended that the petitioner has no valid right or tifle over the schedule propefi, as such, requirement of issuance of notice or insisting on her presence at the time of cancellation of the document is not necessary. The 5tr respondent further contended that o.s.No. 17 of 2016 was instituted by him for canceilation of agreement of sale-cum- GPA before the learned vI Additional District Judge, siddipet, which 1 (2010) 15 SCC 207 2 2022 SCC Online SC 544 1'o 5 was decreed by its judgment dated 29.03.20L9, cancelling the agreement of sale<um-GPA. Therefore, contends that the cause in the present Writ Petition does not surive for adjudication.

9. Further, the 5th respondent contended that aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2019, the petitioner filed Appeal Suit No.247 of 2019 before this Court and the said appeal is pending adjudication. Therefore, contends that the issues raised by the petitioner are already under legal scrutiny by way of a statutory appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 7 vehemently contended that the petitioner has played fraud on them, having no right or title over the subject propefty, and basing on the contentions raised by the 5th respondent, the learned Civil Court O.S.No.17 of 2016 had decreed the suit in favour of the 5h respondent cancelling the agreement of sale-cum-GPA. Therefore, contends that in view of various disputed questions of fact, the petitioner has to approach the competent Civil Court, rather wait for the outcome of Appeal Suit No.247 of 2019 and prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. I 1. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'bte Supreme Couft in the case of Jai i \ I Ht I I r, s u f i 1 :1 i: !i t: !i : i I I i ; i1 l i I I i I I :.-,..,.,, |. :. i.i. r. . 6 singh v/s. ltnion of rndif, wherein, it was held that the High court should not in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction grant relief when an alternative remedy is available. Similarly, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this couft w.A.No. t472 of 2017 dated 20.07.2022 squarery covering the issue.

12. I have given my earnest consideration to the various contentions raised by either parties and perused the record.

13. Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Rules states as under : - "26(i) (k) (0 The registering officer shatt ensure at the time of preparation for registration of cancellation deeds of preuiously regrstered deed of conveyances on sale before him that such ancellation deeds are executed by all the executant and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central Government annutting the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sle: Prouided that the registering officer shatt dispense with the execution of cancellation deeds by executant and claimant parties to the preuiously registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him if the ancellation deed s executed by a Civit Judge or a government officer 3 (19771 1 SCC 1 t; t' -,i'1- 7 competent to execute government orders declaring the propefties contained in the previously registered conveyance on sale to be government or assigned or endowment lands or properties not registerable by any provision of law.

14. once a document is registered by due process of law, the official respondents have no power to cancel the document except by way of a decree passed by the competent civil court. pursuant to the interim suspension passed by this court, on 30.09.2015, the respondents approached before the civil court instituting a suit in o.s.No. L7 of 20LG which was decreed on 29.03.2019. However, being aggrieved by the same, A.S.No.247 of 20t9, was preferred by the petitioner herein which was pending consideration before this Couft.

15. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble supreme court in Thota Ganga Laxmls case (supra), it was held as under: * 5. rn this connection, we may also refer to Rule 26(k)(0 retating to Andhra Pradesh under section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, which states: Rule also supports the obseruations we have made above. rt is only when a sale deed is ancetted by a competent court that the cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to the parties concerned. rn this case, neither is there any declaratbn by a competent court nor was 1) i,: I 8 (''' there any notice to the parties. Hencq this Rute also makes it clear that both the cancellation deed as well as registration thereof were wholly void and non est and meaningless transactions." 16- Similarly, in the case of Ediga chandrasekar Gowd u/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the principat Secretary, Revenue (Registration & Stamps) Department, secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, it was herd that the sale deeds which are executed contracts, the procedure under Rule 26(i)(k)(i) is mandatory and there cannot be any unilateral cancellation of registered sale deeds or registration of such cancellation deeds unless all the parties to the sale deed are also parties to such cancellation deed.

17. In the case of Kolli Rajesh chowdary u/s. state of Andhra Pradeslf , it was held that a deed of cancellation/deed of revocation is ' declared as null and void, since the precedential guidance manifests that there cannot be an unilateral cancellation of registered sate deeds and that a cancellation deed can be registered only after the same is cancelled by competent Civil Court, after notice to the parties concerned, and that in the absence of any declaration by a competent 4 (2Ot7) 4 ALD 12 -5 AIR 2019 AP 40 t: :l l: I ! I I I { (-") 9 court or notice to parties, the execution of deed of cancellation as well as its registration are wholly void and non-est and such transactions are meaningless transactions.

18. Similarly, the recent judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Asset Reconstructrbn company (rndia) Limited v/s. s.P.velayuthanf, the issue that fell for consideration is as to whether the invocation of writ jurisdiction of the High court by the appellant was right especially when civil suits at the instance of the third parties are pending?

19. The court, while considering the matter, relied on the Full Bench decision of the Madras High court in Latif Estate Line'rndia Ltd. u Hadeeja Ammal, which addressed the circumstances under which a de'ed of cancellation of sale could be accepted for registration. The Full Bench held that a unilateral cancellation deed could not be registered. This supports the contention that the Registering officer has a statutory duty to ensure that documents presented for registration comply with the law. The supreme court observed that registration involves three steps: execution by the parties, presentation before the Registrar, and statutory registration by the Registering officer. The Registrar's primary role in the second step is to veriff the identity of 6 2022 SCC OnLine SC 544 i \ i I .'. .i ..,,1 I I 1 ,:1 10 t\ :. the person presenting the document, while the third step lies wholly within the statutory domain of the Registering Authority.

20. The court further held that if the execution or validity of the document itself is disputed, the remedy lies before the civil court. However, where a party challenges only the failure of the Registering Authority to perform statutory duties in the registration process, the High court's writ jurisdiction is not ousted. In the present case, the appellant challenged only the omission of the Registering Authority to verifo whether the purported agent had the authority to execute and present the document. consequenfly, the Single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition, while the Division Bench got carried away by the sound and fury created by the contesting respondents on the basis of pendency of the civil suits and others.

21. The Judgment passed by the Hon'ble supreme court squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Respondent No. 5 pursuant to the interim order passed by this court knocked the doors of the civil court, which is the subject matter before this Court by way of statutory appeal.

22. Even otherwise, during the pendency of the statutory appeal before this court, the registering authority cannot cancet documents i unilaterally and it shall be only after according opportunity of hearing and after issuance of notice to parties concerned. Therefore, the impugned deed of cancellation as well as the registration are wholly void and non-est in the eye of law and transaction is also a meaningless transaction.

23. Therefore, in view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned Deed of Cancellation of Agreement of Sale- cum-GPA dated 02.07.2015, as null and void and allow the Writ Petition, however, leaving it open to the aggrieved parties to work out their remedies in the pending appeal.

24. Accordingly, the Deed of Cancellation of the Agreement of Sale- cum-GPA dated 02.07.2015 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. It is needless to mention that the outcome of the pending Appeal Suit shall be binding on the parties. No costs.

25. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER and Registration), To

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Departmelt ( Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The District Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department, Medak District At Sangareddy.

3. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Siddipet, Medak District. 4. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Toopran, . Medak District. 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to SRI IU.SRINIVAS REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI R.SUSHANTH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] B. One CC to SRI K.SREEDHAR, Advocate (OPUC) 9. Two CD Copies SA BS \qr I .-,*;:+1:*;Cil$;s: ; HIGH COURT DATED:2811112025 \ ,

1.. :,'- TA t/1"t 1: '; S .. t't 2? JAN 2021 * .t 1'. - '.' t ORDER WP.No.31699 of 2015 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \r'sA Y#