B.Bharathi v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the refusal order dt 181212025 issued by the 3rd respondent by a memo dt 151312025 in Pending Doc. No. 17012025 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the unilateral cancellation deed dt 5l3l2OO3 executed by 4th respondent registered vide document 217712003 in respect of the schedule property i.e. bearing plot No 60 admeasuring an extent of 500 Sq.Yds which is equivalent to 418.06 Sq.Mts in Sy No 323/6, situated at Tellapur village and Municipality, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and further direct the 3rd respondent No.3 to receive, register and release the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the schedule property i.e., bearing plot I No 60 admeasuring an extent of 500 sq. Yds which is equivalent to 41g.06 Sq. Mts in Sy.No.323/6, situated at Tellapur village and Municipality Rarnachandrapuram Mandal. Sanga Reddy District illegal, vide pending Doc. No.17O12025. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 issue lnterim order to suspend the document No 2177t20o3 dt 5/3/2003 in respect of the schedule property i.e., plot No 60 admeasuring an extent of soo sq.Yds which is equivalent to 418.06 sq.Mts in S.y.No.323/6, situated at reflapur village and Municipality, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, sanga Reddy District executed by the 4th respondent (i.e., unilateral cancellation deed), pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAyt Counsel forthe Respondents: SMT S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR REVENUE, STAMPS & REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER ) ,-} IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH IIIRIT PETITION o.L1287 2o25 THE 23RD DAY OF DDCEMBER 20/25 Between: B.Bharathi. .Petitioner AND The state of relanga.na, Rep. by its principal secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration), Secretariat, Hyderabad and (3) others. ...Respondents ORDER: sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt- S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue as well as stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to receive, register and a release the sale deed dated Lg.02.2o25 in respect of the open plot Qearing No.60, admeasuring an extent of s00 sq.yards (or 418.06 sq.mtrs.) in sy.No.32 3 / 6, situated at Tellapur village and 2 Municipality, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, sanga Reddy District (for brevity, "subject property"), pending uide No.P.L7O/2025 and passing the impugned refusal order dated 15.03.2025 uide Memo No.10B/2O25, on the ground that the respondent No.4 executed a cancellation deed in respect of the subject property uide Doc.No.2l77 l2OO3 dated 05.03.2003, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4-Society, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, unilaterally cancelled the registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner uide Document No.4703 /1982 dated

08.11.1982 through Document No.2l77 /2OO3 dated 05.03.2003, which is contrary to the orders of the Honble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi & antother us. @uerrlment of Andhra Prq.desh and othersl, Further, in a similar case in W.P.No.27962 of 2005 dated 03.03.2011, this Court set aside the unilaterally executed cancellation deed and the s€une has attained finality. In view of the s€une, learned counsel prayed to set aside i} the cancellation deed dated 05.03.2003 and to direct the respondent authorities to register the subject document presented by the petitioner without reference to the refusal order dated r/

15.03.2025. '1zoro; rs scc 207 / / ') 3

4. On the other hand, learned. Assistant Government pleader, basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.3, submits that at the time of registering the cancellation in 2003, there was no prohibition under the Registration Act, 190g, or the Rules made thereunder, which prevented the registering officers from accepting such unilateral cancellation deeds. The legal position changed only after the amendment of the Registration Rules by insertion of Rule 26(kl uide notification dated 29.rl.2006, issued by the commissioner and Inspector-General, Registration and stamps, Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the registration of the cancellation deed in 2oo3 cannot be faulted as it was in accordance with the then prevailing practice and law. Further, the petitioner presented the sale deed for registration, citing the L9B2 sale deed as his link document. However, since the said deed stood cancelled through the cancellation deed, the petitioner's document could not be entertained and registration was refused by order dated 1s.03.2025. Also, the Sub-Registrar, a being a statutory authority, is bound to act in accordance with law and the documents available on record and unless the cancellation deed is annulled by a competent court, the petitioner cannot insist upon registration of his subsequent deed based on a caqrcelled document. 4

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.4, submits that the then President of the respondent No.4-Society committed several irregularities by making multiple transactions over the sarne land and conducting real estate business under the guise of the Society which finally led to multiplicity of litigations. As part of the said irregularities, the then President of the Society, in order to sell the subject land to third parties, executed a unilateral cancellation deed dated 05.03.2003 uide Document No.2l77 l2OO3 in respect of the subject land, thereby depriving the rights of the petitioner herein. In view of the sarne, learned Assistant Government Pleader requested this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. After hearing both sides and on a perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute regarding the purchase of the subject property by the petitioner from the respondent No.4-Society under a registered Sale Deed uide Document No.47O3 /1982 dated 08.1 L.1982. Thereafter, without issuing any notice to the * petitioner, the respondent No.4-Society unilaterally cancelled the Document No.470 3 / 1982 uide Document No.2 177 /2OO3 dated

05.03.2003. 5

7. The said issue was already considered by this Court in W.P.No.27962 of 2005 and uide order dated 03.03.2011, this Court set aside the unilateral cancellation deed presented by the respondent No.4-Society by relying on the Judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Thota Ganga Lqxmi (supra-l). The relevant portion of the Judgment reads as under: "4. In our opiniory tlere was no need for the appellants to approachthe ciuil court as the said cancellation deed dated 4-8- 2005 as well as registration of th.e same uas whollg uoid and non est and can be ignored altogetlrcr. For illustration, if A transfers a piece of land to B bg a registered sale deed, tLrcn, if it is not disputed that A had tlw title to tle land, that title passes to B on the registration of the sale deed (retrospectiuely from the date of the exeantion of tle same) and B tlrcn becomes the owner of ttrc land. If A u.tants to subsequently get that sale deed cancelled, he has to file a ciuil suit for cancellation or else he can request B to sell the land. back to e but by no stretch of imagination, can a cancellation deed be executed or registered. Ihrrs is unheard of in laut.

5. In this connection, we maA also refer to Rule 26(k)(t relating to Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of tlrc Registration Act, 1908, which states: "(t) TtLe registering offienr shall ensure at the time of preparation for registration of cancellation deeds of preuiouslg registered deed of conueyarlces on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are exeqrted by all the executant and claimant parties to the preuiously registered conueAance on sale and that such cancellation deed fs accompanied bg a declaration shotuing natural consent or orders of a competent Ciuil or High Court or State or Central Gouernment annulling the transaction contained in the preuiouslg regi.stered deed of conuegance on sale: n 6 ( Prouided that tfle registeing offier shall dispense uith tle exeantion of cancellation deeds bg exeantant and claimant parties to the preuiouslg registered deeds o/ conueAances on sale before him if th.e cancellation deed is exeanted" bg a Ciuil Judge or a gouemment officer competent to exeante gouernment orders declaring the properties contained in the preuiously registered conueAance on sale to be gouerrlment or assigned or endowment lands or properties not registerable by any prouision of laut." A reading of the aboue Rule also supports the obseruations ue haue mad.e aboue. It is onlg uh.en a sale deed i.s cancelled bg a competent court that the cancellation deed can be registered and" that too after notice to the p.arties concerned. In this case' neitlwr is there ang declaration bA a competent court nor was there any notice to tte parties. Hen@, this Rule also makes it clear that both the cancellation deed as utell as registration thereof were taholty uoid and non est and meaningless transactions." B. The above findings of the Judgment squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. In view of the sarne, the cancellation deed dated 05.03.2003 executed by the respondent No.4-Society is liable to be set aside and the respondent authorities have to register the subject document presented by the petitioner. g. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned cancellation deed registered as Document No.2 177 /2OO3 dated 05.03.2003 in respect of the subject property and the respondent authorities are directed to receive, register and release the subject document presented by the petitioner, without l 7 reference to the refusal order dated 15.03.2025 utde Memo No.loB/2O25. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII To,

1. T.he Princip{ Secretary, Revenue (Stamps a Hyderabad, State of Tel-angana. '-P. PONNA KRISH STANT R SECTION OFFICER stration), Secretariat,

2. The District Collector, Sanga Reddy District. 3. The Joint Sub Registrar-!, Ro (oB) pdtancheru, Sanga Reddy District. 4. fhe Person in-charge, Sqb-Division.Coop_erati.ve officer, lndustrial Employees 'B_andragua; ffi;aii, - n.C.puiir, cooperative _ Housing . so^c.iety . L_td., Patancheru, Sanga ReOOy District, Sariga Reddyl

5. one cc to SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAyt, Advocate topucl 6. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad TOUTJ

7. Two CD Copies BSR BS l. a I HIGH COURT DATED i 23112t2025 ORDER WP.No.112BT of 2025 ';'.11He s t-4 0 6 JAN 2026 -'t ." (:) (-) f- )( ,t I t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS j\ :.