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

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an 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 iltegal, arbitrary and violative of the iudgment of this F-:-.'-'--.!= Hon'ble Court reported io 2012 (4) ALD 41 1. Consequently, dir )ct the Respondent No.2 to complete the process of registration of Deed of Cancel ation of Agreement Sale-cum- Power of Attorney. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 29fi)9 OF 2013) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circt mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may re pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to cornplete the process of registrati( n of the deed of Cancellation of Revocation of Agreement of Sale-cum-Genera Power of Attorney presented on 21.05.201 3. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI INENI VENKATA PRASAD (Nr )T PRESENT) COUNSEI fOr thE RESPONdCNtS,GP FOR STAMPS AND REGI]S TRATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR w P ON No.23 504 of 2013 ORDER: None appears for the petitioners. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for stamps and Registration appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3 (respondent f'lo'3 is impleaded as per the Court Order dated 22.11.2018 in WPMP No'32596 of 2013)'

2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the 2nd respondent i.e. ttre Joint Sub-Registrar-I' Ranga Reddy District in passing an order of refusal datd 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.Thecaseofthepetitionersintheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthe Writ Petition, in brief, is that they had executed an Agreement of Sale- cum-General Power of Attomey on 22'03'2006 in favour of Totakura Jangaiah Yadav and Totakura Srisailam Yadav in respect of property in Survey Nos.81 to 84 situated at Boduppal Village' Ghatkesar Mandal' Ranga Reddy District and the said document was registered' bearing document No'4574 of 2006' Since the agreement holders were acting against their wishes'.-tfre petitioners intended to cancel the said 2 document and accordingly, approache{ the 2d ft)r pondent and presented the document of cancellation for registrl ion. The 2nd respondent by the impugned order datd 29.07.2[]3 refused to register the document presented by the petitioners r;l lting that for cancellation of the document, the consent of both he pafties is necessary. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 29.07.2C13, shows that the cancellation deed is not signed by both the princip; I/Vendors and Agents/Vendees to complete the transaction, whereas rs per C & IG (R&S) Memo No. RC. No.Gene ral I Com I t849212009 daterl 30. 1 2.2009 & Circular Memo No.G1/Cam/402812070 dated 31 03.2010 for Cancellation of AGPA, the consent of both the parties is necessary. Moreover the judgment mentioned in the document vide W.p.No.2S9g3 of 2011, is applicable to that particular transaction. He:r ce, in view of the above circular instruments, the 2d respondent refu iecl to register the document under Section 70 of the Registration a t, as Refusal No.24 | 20 t3 dated 29.07.2013.

5. The impugned order specifically mentions that if he petitioners are aggrieved by the same, an appeal lies to the Dis rict Registrar, Ranga Reddy (East) within 30 days from the date of rer:r ipt of the said 1- 3 order. However, the petitioflers, without availing the said remedy' had approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India' In view of the above, without going into the merits of the 6. 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,inaccordancewithlaw'SincetheWritPetitionispending 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 treatecl as having been ftled within limitation' On such appeal being filed, the Distict 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'

1. Subject to above observation and direction' the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 8 pending miscellaneous P9-!!!99-if anv, tn"" t$,f;.t""Xixrvrs REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 t d 6@ ' The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps A P Mozamjahi Market, HYderabad The Diskict Registrar, Ranga Reddy (East)' The Joint Sub-Registrar - l, R'O. Ranga Reddy (East)' The Secretary to Government, Revenue .Department commissioner & I G ,ii"'nqii.ti"ti"" i"r"ngina, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad' One CC to SRI INENI VENKATA PRASAD, Advocate IOPUCI Two CCs to GP for Stamps and Registration' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI (Office of the Stamps)' Government of 'ind h IGH COURT DATE: ):1411112025 -';=:=' , {HE STA o C' C) i9 JAt'| 202t ,z o -)\ )1, ORDER WP.No.;23604 of 2013 DISPOSING OF THE WIIIT PETITION WITI IOUT COSTS (- \ L