Supreme court in the case of satya Pal Andnd v. stqte o

3. Kumari Malgari Bilvani,, D/o. Lqte M. Venkata Ram Reddy, aged 9 years, Occ S_tudent, R/o. H. No. 1-30-35711 (part), Plot Nos.22 and 23, Kanajiguda, Alwal Village, Malkajgiri M_andq!, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Since minbr, rep. by their natural mother Smt. PandiAnuradha, \A77o. Late M. Venkata Ram Reddy. Kumari Malgari Tanvitha,, D/o. Late M. Venkata Occ Student, Fl/o. H. No. Plot 1-30-35711 Alwal Village, Malkajgiri by their natural mother Reddy. (Petitioners to 4 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased Petitioner no.1 a-s per C.O.dt.27.11.2025 in lA No.1/20r9 Late M. Venkata Rarnr Mandal Smt. Anuradha, ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and stamps, A.P., : Hyd, Mozamjahi Market, Hyderabad. . 2. The Joint Sub-Registrar - 15, Vallabhnagar, R.R. District. 3. The Govt of A.P, rep by its Secretary to Govemment, Revenue Department, (office of the Commissioner and lG of Registration and Stamps), Secretariat building, Hyderabad

4. M. Ravinder, S/o M.Dorawamy, Aged 46 years, Occ:, Business, Resident of H.No.27-1 91, Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad. ! RR3 & 4 are impleaded as per C.O dt 05.12.2025 in l.A No.2l2O13 in W.P. No.3178712013. 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 particularly one in the nature Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in registering the deed of revocation dt. 13.05.2013 as illegal, arbitrary and in viotation of Rule 26(ixkxi) of the A.P. Rules under the Registration Act. Consequently, set-aside the registered deed of revocation dt. 13.05.2013. 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 registered deed of revocation dt. 13.05.2013 registered by Respondent No. 2. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. R. DHEERAJ SINGH Counsel for the Respondents No 1 & 2: SRI H. RAKESH KUMAR, AGP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION. Gounsel for the Respondent No 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No 4z --- The Court made the following: ORDER I t o t. IN TIIE IIIGH COI'RT r1OR TIIE STATE OF TELAITGANA AT ITYDIRABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE GADI PRAVEEIT KI'}IAR DATE: o,5..12.2ol25 Betseea: M.Venkat Ram Reddy (died per LRs) and three others. The Commissioner and Inspector General and ,, others AND ..Petitioner ...Respondents tDttrqiiE Heard Sri R.Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration representing respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondent No.2 in registering the deed of revocation dated

13.05.2013, as illegal and a consequential direction to set aside tJle registered deed of revocation.

3. The facts leading to file the writ petition are that one M. Ravinder executed a release deed dated O2.O7.2OO4 in respect of the property bearing No.1-3O-357 l1 (part) in plot Nos.22 and 23 in Survey Nos.403 and 4O4, admeasuring I i : i 2 I 2OO square yards situated at Kanajiguda, Alwal village, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. District, comprising half share of joint rights, before the Sub-Registrar Office, in favour of the petitioner. The said Ravinder once again approached respondent No.2 and registered the deed of revocation dated 13.05.2013 for cancellation of release deed executed on O2.O7.2OO4. It is setfled proposition of law by the Honble 4. Supreme court in the case of satya Pal Andnd. vs. stqte o! *Iadhga Proldesh and othersl that the power to register a document of cancellation cannot be construed to confer a Etasi-judiciat power on the registering authority, and it is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent Court, the cancellation deed can be registered and that too, !.. after notice to the parties concerned, and that the Rules make cleq5 that both cancellation deed as well as rggrstration were wholly void and non-est in the eye of law. In this regard, it is appropriate to extract Rule

5. ) 26(ixkxi) of the Rules hereunder : "26(i) (k) O fhe registering olfter shall ersure at th'e time of preparationfor registration of cancellation deeds of preuiouslg registered deed of @nuegances on sale before ' (zoro) lo scc 767 -"J .-) 3 him tlat such canccllatian deed-s are exeatted bg all tle excsttarlt and. claimant parties to the preuiouslg registered @nteAane on sab and that sltch qnellatian deed is a.wmpanbd bg a declaration shouting nafrtral onsent or ord.ers of a @npetent Ciuil or Hbh Court or State or Central Gouemment anrrulling the transadion arrtairted in the preubuslg registered deed of arutegane on sale: Provided tlut the regi"stering olficer slull dispense utith the exea,fiion of a nrellation deeds bg exealtant o.nd claimant parties to tle preuiouslg registered. deeds of @nueganes on sale before him if the mnrellation deed is acecuted bg a Civil Judge or a governm.ent o;ffier @npetent to exeaite gouemnent ord-ers declaring the properties antained in preuiously registered canuegance on sale to be gouemment or assigned or endoum.ent land.s or properties not registerable by ang provi,sion of law." \

6. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trtotd funga Laxml dnd dttother Vs. S;tote of Attdhta held that it is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent Court that cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to the parties concerned

7. Admittedly, respondent No.2 should have ensured that cancellation deed is executed by both tl.e executants and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance, accompanied by a declaration showing mutual

2.(2010) 15 scc 207 u 4 consent, whereas in the absence of the s€une, respond.ent No.2 has no power to unilaterally register the deed of revocation. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate, to meet the ends of justice, to set aside the impugned deed of revocation dated 13.05.2013 cancelling the release deed executed on O2.O7 .2OO4.

8. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned deed of revocation dated 13.05.2013 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. That the Rule Nisi has been made Absotute as stated "6r" Witness the Hon'ble The CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH, on this Friday, the Fifth Day of December Two Thousand and Twenty Five. t SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER I //TRUE GOPY// To,

1. The commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and stamps, A.P., Hyd, Mozamjahi Market, Hyderabad.

2. The Joint Sub-Registrar - 15, Vallabhnagar, R.R. District. 3. The Govt of A.P, rep by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, (office of the Commissioner and lG of Registration and Stamps), Secretariat building, Hyderabad.

4. One CC to SRl. R DHEERAJ SINGH, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . TOUTJ I

6. Two ccs to GP FOR REVENUE, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.tOUTl 7, Two CD CoPies / Ww / I I , - \ \ L I HIGH COURT DATED:05/1 212025 \ \ ORDER WP.No.23625 of 2013 o() t * .THE S n 0 0 I d 2m .* \J ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6