COMMON ORDER :-In this batch of writ petitions, a common question arises for consideration, viz., whether the separate, but identical, proceedings issued by the Vice Chairman of Vijayawada-Guntur- Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority (for short "the respondent-authority") whereunder he purported to have cancelled the registered sale deeds standing in favour of the petitioners - are legal and valid?

2. Since the facts in all these cases are similar, for convenience facts in Writ Petition No.13032 of 2006 are narrated hereinbelow:

The respondent-authority was constituted under the provisions of Section 3 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. An extent of Acs.390.38 cents of land was acquired by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and transferred to the respondent authority comprised in various Survey Numbers, i.e., R.S. Nos.274 to 287, 299 to 302,305 to 313 of Mangalagiri Municipality and R.S. Nos.56 to 65, 72 to 75, 77 to 83, 85, 87 to 93, 95, 348 to 357 of Nowluru Gram Panchayat, Guntur District, was divided into plots under the nomenclature. "Amaravathi Township". Notifications were issued by the respondent-authority in the years 1997, 1998 and 2000 calling for applications from the general public for allotment of the said house plots. The respondent-authority allotted plots in favour of 1327 applicants under different categories such as auction and first came first served basis in the year 2000. It registered plots in favour of the allottees, who paid the total costs within the stipulated period, and allotments were cancelled in respect of those who failed to pay the costs.• The plots, which were registered in favour of the petitioners, were allotted to the original applicants and on account of default committed by them, the allotments were cancelled. While the petitioners claimed that on the applications made by them, they were allotted the respective plots, which were subsequently registered by Sri B. V. Prasanna Kumar, the Administrative Officer of the respondent-authority; it is the case of the respondent-authority that no allotments were made, no decision was taken in favour of the petitioners and no such authorization was given to Sri B. V. Prasanna Kumar.

3. The Vice-Chairman of the respondent-authority issued separate show cause notices to the petitioners and after considering their explanations, passed separate, but identical, orders, whereby he declared registration of ' the plots in favour of the petitioners as null and void and Cancelled the said sale deeds. The petitioners questioned these proceedings in this batch of writ petitions.

4. In their affidavits, the petitioners raised pleas which are similar to each other. The substance of their averments is that Sri B. V. Prasanna Kumar, the then Administrative Officer, was the authorized agent of the respondent-authority to execute the sale deeds. All the petitioners were allotted the lands by resolutions passed by the respondent-authority. The respondent authority received valuable considerations from the petitioners and its authorized agent thereafter executed all the sale deeds. There is neither fraud nor misrepresentation as alleged by the Vice-Chairman. Neither he, nor the respondent-authority has any power or jurisdiction to unilaterally cancel the sale deeds validly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ''the Act"). If the respondent authority is satisfied that fraud is played in the registration of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners, the only course available to it is to file a civil suit in a Court of competent jurisdiction. Even assuming that the respondent-authority can seek cancellation of the registration, it can do so by taking recourse to Rule 26(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules made under the Act (for short "the Rules'') by following the procedure prescribed therein for getting the sale deeds cancelled. The orders passed by the Vice Chairman of the respondent-authority are not supported by v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document