High Court · 2025

Dr. K.P. Srinivas Rao, S/o K. Ashok Rao, Aged 40 years, Fl/o Avanthi nagar, Plot No.50, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. RR4 to 7 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased Respondent No.3 as per C.O.dt.17.07:2025 in lA No.1/2017. ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the leter No.RO(OB)248, dated 24.03.2009 issued by the second respondent as bad, illegal without jurisdiction, and arbitrary consequently direct the respondents not to receive and admit any deed of cancellation in respect of the Agreements of sale-cum-GPA s dated 08.03.2003 ard 05.08.2003 for a total extent of Ac.68.00 in Survey No.46, situated at Rayadurg Village, Serlingampally tvlandal, Ranga Reddy District in the interest of justi:e. t.A. NO: 1 0F 2:009(WPMP. NO: 10426 0F 2009) 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 impugned letter RO(OB) 248, dated 24.03.2009 issued by the second respondent pending disposal of the main writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2:01S(WPMP. NO: 2067 OF 2015) Between: Sri Buru,Jupalli Shivaram Krishna, S/o. Sri B.B Businesr;, R/o. Plot No.25, Krishnapuram, Hyderabad-34 api Raju, ag Road No.1 ed 49 years, Occ: 0, Banjara Hills, ...PETITIONER AND

1. The Conrmissioner And lnspector General Of Stamps and Registration, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

2. The Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Office of the District Registrar, Registration and Stamps l)epartment, Bhavaninagar, [\Ioosapet, Hyderabad.

3. K.Ashok Rao, S/o. K.Kishan Rao, aged 70 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 50 years, A'ranthi Nagar, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 4. The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Stamps & Registration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...PROPOSED RESPONDENT 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 permit the peti':ioner to implead the proposed party herein as party respondent in the above writ petition No.7957 of 2009 in the interest of justice Between: K.Ashok Rao, s/o. K.Kishan Rao, aged z0 years, occ: Business, R/o. 50 years, Avanthi Nagar, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND

1. Sri Burugupalli Shivaram Krishna, S/o. Sri B.B Business, R/o. Plot No.25, Krishnapuram, Hyderabad-34 api Raju, ag Road No.1 ed 49 years, Occ: 0, Banjara Hills,

2. The Commissioner And lnspector General Of Stamps and Registration, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

3. The Joint Sub-Registrar-|, Office of the District Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department, Bhavaninagar, Moosapet, Hyder-abad 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 vacate the interim orders passed 18.04.2OO9 passed in WPMPNo.1042612009 in WPNo.7957l2OO9. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.M.KRISHNAIAH & SRI NALLA MUKUND REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: AGPs FOR REVENUE (STAMPS & REGTSTRATTON) Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 7: SRI A. PULLA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER n THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7957 OF 2009 ORDEi R: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief/s:- "....to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more especially orre in the nature of Writ of fvlandamus to set aside the letter Nr>.RO(OB) 248, dated 24.O3.2009 issued by the second respondent as bad, illegal without jurisdiction, arbitrary ccnsequently direct the respondents not to receive and admit any de,ed of cancellation in respect of the agreements of sale-cum- GPAs dated 08.03.2003 and 05.08.2003 for a total extent of Ac.6B- OCt in Survey No.46, situated at Rayadurg Village, Serlingampally M;andal, Ranga Reddy District in the interest of justice and pass...." 2. Heard Sri N.M.Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Nalla Mukund Reddy and Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Revenur-' (Stamps and Registration) appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. lt is contended that originally the unofficial respondent along with 18 others executed various agreements of sale-cum-GPAs dated 0t1.03.2003, 30.03.2003 and 05.08.2003, for a extent of Ac.68- 00 out of the total extent of Ac.B4-30 in Survey No.46, situated at Rayadurg Village, Serlingampalli Mandal, Rangareddy District in favour of the petitioner and his associates under sale consideration. As per clause 7(ll) of the agreements of sale-cum-GpA entered ') GPK,J ll1P.No.7957 of 2009 between the parties, the balance sale consideration will be paid as per terms of the agreement.

4. lt was further contended that the unofficial respondent approached this court by way of w.p.N o.172g of 200g seeking direction to mutate their names in the revenue records, this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition vide order dated

05.03.2009 directing the Tahsildar, serlingampally Mandal to mutate the names as per the orders passed in Apptication No.1146 of 2oo2 in c.s.No.7 of 195B, dated 09.10.2002. when the petitioner's vendors conferred powers to enter into Sub-Contract to execute sale deed in favour of prospective purchasers as the same is independent from clause 1a(vi) to (ix) of the said agreement of sale- cum-GPA, the petitioner as well as purchasers executed sale deed in accordance with law and delivered possession. since no mutation was effected the unofficial respondents approached this Court by way of w.P.No.1729 of 2009, which was disposed of on 05.03.2009 directing the respondents to effect the mutation. pursuant to the orders of this court, 3'd respondent approached the 1"t respondent seeking cancellation of the sale deed executed by the petitioner by raising various contentions and sought for cancellation of sale deed by relying upon the judgment passed by this court in w.p.No.gs12 l 3 GPK,I W.P.No.7957 of 2009 of 2003, wherein the 2nd respondent passed the impugned orders' Thereforr;, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently that such power of cancelling the document does not vest contend€)d with the 2nd respondent unless the allegation of fraud and non-payrnent of sale consideration is proved by the competent authority. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that even otherwis,= in terms of the Clause 12 of the agreement in the event of any disputes, the parties have to avail the remedy of arbitration but they have no right to seek for cancellation of the document unilaterally.

5. Lerarned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Stamps and Registration) vehemently contended that as per the judgment passed cy this Court in W.P.No .9512 of 2003, the person who has ex-facie, having right, 'whether such right is registered or not can always ilpproach the registering authority, with a request to cancel a Sale Deed, which was registered earlier by such registering authority by shovving that subsequent registration was obtained by way of fraud by a person, who is not entitled to transfer the property or such transfer was registered by playing fraud on the owner or on the stranget'. Therefore, he contended that it is statutory dispensation, namely Transfer of Property Act, Contract Act, Specific Relief Act 4 GPK,J ll1P.No.7957 of 2009 and Registration Act, where the Court does not see any prohibition of operation on the exercise of inherent powers by the Registering Authority to cancel the sale deed earlier registered, which can cause prejudice to the true owner as well as to the entire public at large.

6. Learned counsel further contended that the registering authority acts as per the provisions of the law of the land and if the Court decides othenruise, the same will be implemented in toto and it is further submitted that this Court in a decision reported in 2006 (6) ALD 623 (F.B) held that the parties should approach the civil Court for cancellation of the Deeds and the registering authority has no power to cancel the sale deed once it is registered. The legal contention made by the 2nd respondent is placed on record. Though thg notices were served upon the unofficial respondent, neither representation nor any counter affidavit is filed.

7. The unofficial respondent filed counter-affidavit contending that no amounts are paid and they are entitled for cancellation of the sale deeds.

8. sub-Rule (k) of Rule 26 of A.P.Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, reads as follows: "26(kxi) The registrating officer shall ensure at the time I l t. \ 5 GPK,J 11..P.No.7957 of 2009 of presentation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyances on sale before him ttrat such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executant ard claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on s;rle and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a d,eclaration showing mutual consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of c()nveyance on sale; Provided that the registrating officer shall dispense with the execution of cancellation deeds by executant and claimant parties to the previously registered deeds of conveyance on sale br:fore him if the cancellation deed is executed by a Civil Judge or a Government Officer competent to execute Government olders declaring the properties 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. (ii) Save in the manner provided for above no cancellation deed of a previously registered deed of conveyance on sale before him shall be accepted for presentation for registration."

9. ln terms of the said Rule the Registering authority shall ensure at the tinre of registration of cancellation deeds, which are previously registered deed of conveyances on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all such executants and claimant, the parties to the previously registered conveyance on sate and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing mutual consent. j I I l,:t, I : 6 GPK,J ll4P.No.7957 of 2009

10. Therefore, it is prima-facie evident that without verifying the records and without going into the factual aspects unilateral cancellation by the official respondents is arbitrary. Even otherwise, any fraud or misrepresentation is alleged by the parties, it is for the competent civil court to decide and establish such fraud or misrepresentation by way of conducting regular trial and leading evidence.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner reried upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court in Thota Gianga Laxmi vs Government of Andhra Pradeshl, wherein it was categorically held i I as under: ( "...Xe reading ctf the above rule also supports the observations we have made' above. It is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent court that the cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to the concerned parties. In this case, neither is there any declaration by a competent court nor was there any notice to the parties. Hence, this Rule ulso makes it clear that both the cancellation deed as well as registration thereof were wholly void and non est and meaningless transaction.....,, Therefore, in view of the settled proposition of law, it is for the competent civil court to cancel such deeds by adducing proper evidence and providing opportunity to the parties, as such the 2nd respondent has no absolute power to cancel the registered t zoro 1rs; scc 207 i 7 GPK,J l(.P.No.7957 of 2009 deeds unilateralty. Therefore, the impugned proceeding dated

24.03.2009 is hereby set-aside granting liberty to the aggrieved parties tc approach the competent Civil Court for establishing their rights.

12. Acr:ordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as 1:o costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. SREENIV ASSISTANT ASA REDDY STRAR OFFICER

1. The cornmissioner And lnspector General of Stamps and Registration' Govt of Telangana, HYderabad' lvloosaPet, HYderabad' Hyderabad, State of Telangana'

2. The J<lint sub-Registration and Stamps Department, Bhavaninagar' 3. The Principal secretlry.to Government, Stamps & Registration' Secretariat' 4. One CC to SRI N.M'KRISHNAIAH' Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to SRI A.PULLA REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] 6.OneCOtoSRINALLAMUKUNDREDDY'Advocate[OPUC]

7.TwoC(]stoGPFoRREVENUE(STAIVIPSqREGISTRATIoN),HighCourt for the State oi'Teffig;"; at tiyoeiabad [oUT]

8. Two CD CoPies BSR PVL q*---" \ HIGH COURT DATED: il9l0812025 d. 4 ORDER WP.No.7€157 of 2009 ; t \JR lHE S 6 () t I 1 ',/ u r,I lf 'lq Oe A , I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUTCOSTS ,P Ct)-"d ---*r" - L