The High Court · 2025

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 lssue order or direction, more so in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent registering the cancellation deed vide document No 10217 o'f 2011 dated '1 8 09.2011 by cancelling the petitioners Registered Agreerrent of Sale vide Document No.g867 of 2007 dated 07 09.2007 i egal arbitrary and high handed and violation of principles of natural justice and vrolative of procedrrre contemplated under Indian Registration Act 1908 and Andhra Pradesh Rirles under Registration Act apart from violative of Artrcle 14, 21 3004 of constrtutron of lndia and consequen y set aside the same. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 34957 OF 20 12r, Petition under Sectiorr 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition. the High court may be pleased direct the respondent No 1 and 2 rot to register any other document in pursuant to the cancellatron of docunrent vide Document No. 10217 of 2011 dated l g g.201 1 and creat any thrrd party rrghts over the property i.e.. open land hearing plot No. 50.1 , admeasuring 500 Sq yds Sy.No 59 Sreepuram Colony, Karmanghat village Saroornagar A,4andal. L B. Nagar Rangareddy District l.A. NO: 2 OF 2O12(WPMP. NO 34958 0F 2012) Petitron under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporl of tlre petrtion, the High court may be pleased to restain the Respondents Nc 3 to 6 or his agents, servants or any other person claiming under him from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners property in relation to Open Land bearing plot No. 50.1 admeasuring 500 Sq Yards Sy No 59, Sreepurarr Colony Karmanghat village, Saroornagar Mandal L.B Nagar Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt K. MANNAM KONDA REPRESENTING SRI. T BALA MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No 1 & 2: AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No 3 To 6: ---- The Court made the followirrg: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR W.P.No.27457 OF 2OL2 ORDER: Heard Sri K. Mannam Konda representing Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, lcarned counsel for the petitioners and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the oftlcial respondents-

2. The present Writ Petition is hled assailing the action of respondent No.l in registering cancellation deed, uide Doc' No.lO2 17 of 2011 dated 18.09 2011 by cancelling petitioner's Registcrcd Agreement of Sale uide Document No'9867 of '2OO7 datecl O7.09.2O07 as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Lcarned counsel for the petitioners contended that during the yezrr 2O 1O, some of the third parties claimed rights over the subject property and illegally encroached the land and wanted to dispossess. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached before the Civil Court by u'ay of O.S No.103 of 2010 and the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners and also protccted their property.

4. Pursuant to the decree passed by the competent Civil Court for the purpose of executing the registered sale deed when the petitioners approached respondent No.1 for obtaining Encumbrance Certificate, the 2"d and 3'd petitioner were shocked to noticc that the title deed in favour of the petitioners was .- 2 cancclled by wiry o[ a cancellation dccd uide Document No.10217 of 2O11. The 1>etiti,:rncrs aftcr obtaining :r certihed copv noticed that the unol'llcial rcsJ)ondcnts had unilatcrally car-rcelled the rcgistt rcd ilgr( cme nt ol- sakr u,tthout evr:n issuing notice lo the petitioners.

5. Lcarned counscl lor tl'rc petition('rs submitted that the unofllcial respondents are not parlies to lhe registered agreement of saLc executed in lrrvour of the petrtioners; thercfore their canccllation is null ancl void. It is lurthcr submitted that as per Section 3ll a ncl .15 ol tl'rc Indian Rcgistration Act, when a docurnent is l)res,'nte(l by a pcrson other thatr the one who execLlted it, the rcgisrcring ofl-iccr ma1' refuse the registration. Undcr Secrion 35, the rr:gistcring officcr must be satisfied that the document pn sentcd for resistration is in facl execuleC by the person who zrpp(]ars belore him and admits its execution. Registration can also bc refused if the executant denies execution or i[ 1.he person n'ho purportedly exccuted the document is deceascd. Without iollowing the prescribed procedure, the respondent No. I unilatr:rally cancelled the document.

6. Learnerl counsel for thc pctitioners also submits that as per Rule 26(k)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Rules under Registration Act, 1908, thc registering authority shall ensure that at the time of presenting thc r<:gistrzrtion of cancellation deed for previously 3 registered deeds, such cancellation deed needs to be accompanied by declaration showing mutual consent or orders of a competent Civil Court or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered dced of conveyance on sale.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that thc issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.272O4 ol 2015 dated 22.O8.2O25. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the

8. administrative authorities have inherent powers to recall or revoke their ou,n orders if such orders are found to be obtained by way of playing fraud on public authority. g. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contends that in terms of judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.9S12 of 2OO3, dated 24.10.2025, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that the true ou'ner of the property can execute a cancellation deed for cancellation of the previously registered fraudulent sale deed. Therefore, the respondent herein registered the cancellation cleed of agreemcnt on 16.11.2011 uide document No'10217 of 2011 since the Agreement of Sale cum GPA executed by G'Leeia Kumari and G.Sekhar is a fraudulent transaction.

10. Perused the record. I have given my earnest considerations to the contentions argued by both the parties. Under Rule 26 (ixk) 4 of Andhra Pradesh Ruit's under Rcgistration Act 19O8, seeks as - unclcr: '(i) Th,' revisterirtg tlltr c-r sltall ensurc at llrc time of Prcparation lor regisuation ol (irnccllallon decds tti previouslr rcglstercd rlr'cd of cr,rrrr:rtrncps ()n sirlc bcfore hiu that sucll canc--ellation dceds are cxecLled trr aLl tlte executarnt artd claimant parties to 1lr<: prt'ri,rrrsll rc{islcrecl conveYancc orr salc anrl that such cancellatirn dec rl ts ;rcc'ompanied b1 it dcclaration sho\\'lng natur.il consenl or or rlers oI a competent Cit'rl or Iligh Court or State or ('eI.lral ()overnmcnt zrluttllllng thc transaclion containcd ln th( pl('\'lotlslr rcgisteletl (l, cd o[ (]orrvevancc on sale"

11. I havc also ,:onsiclcrecl lhc contenlions o[ thc respondents that therrr s as involvcment ol fraud, misrepresentation and fraudulent transa('tion in the agreement of sale cum GPA exccuted by the pa rties.

12. Howevcr, it is a rvr:ll scttlcd law as per the t:ontention of thc pctitioncr Lhat in vicu of the dccision rcndered by this Court in Thota Ga.nga Laxmi d.nd Anr. v/s Goaerttment of And.hrd' Prqdeshr, lhe respondcnt No.l h:rs no power to unilaterally cancel the rcgistered agreemenL of sale cLrm GPA without following duc procedure and u irhout issuing notice to thc affected parties. Since the element of fraud is involved, it is f<rr the parties to approach beforc thc competent Civil Court for <:stablishing such ' 20 l0 (l 5) scc 207 5 I: fraud and misrepresentation. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside leaving open to the affected party to approach before the competent Civil Court for adjudication of the matter.

13. Accordingly, this Writ Pctition is disposed of. There shall be no order as lo costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. AS SDI.T . SRIDEVI T REGIS TR tON OFFICER I/TRUE COPY'I To, 1

2. 3 4 J o r Nr su B,REG r sr RR r Rans a, ::1:v't:'::;:[.]'il'"Jr, --", Disrrict Resistrar, Ransa :"HlH; one cc to sRl t "ot1t;;' 'nin ""'n "r llsi,,';f ffiuii* the state or relansana at ea,i"rt. toPucl *'u " 5 Two CD Coptes DAN HIGH COURT DATED:31 11012025 ORDER WP.No.27457 of 2012 .:\. " 3 l,'lB ill2fi .J i) J. * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS c) C "t"^ Yr -- e6\at