The petitioner is a private limited company, undertaking the activity of construction and development. It entered into a development agreement with M/s. Sangam Dattaiah Goud and 16 others including respondents 4 to 8 herein on 27.06.2005 for construction of a building complex in Ac.5.07 guntas of land in Survey Nos.136, 137 and 156 of Khajaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal; with a facility to have a common approach road of 33’ x 230’. It was also appointed as G.P.A. by the executants. The agreement was registered with the office of the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy at Moosapet. In terms of the agreement, the petitioner is said to have paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. Being refundable security deposit, to respondents 4 to 8, towards their undivided one-fifth share Respondents 4 to 8 are also said to have agreed to sell 50% of their undivided share to the petitioner. After obtaining the construction permission/approval from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, the petitioner is said to have developed the property. Some of the portions of the property so developed are also said to have been sold in terms of the agreement-cum-G.P.A.

Respondents 4 to 8 executed a deed of partial cancellation of the development agreement-cum-G.P.A. on 30.10.2009 and the same was registered with the District Registrar of Marriages and Assurances, Moosapet, 3rd respondent herein as document No.6457/2009. The petitioner challenges the action of the 3rd respondent in registering the deed of cancellation executed by respondents 4 to 8.

The petitioner pleads that though the document executed in its favour by Sangam Dattaiah Goud and 16 others on 27.06.2005 is named as development agreement, it has all the ingredients of the transaction of sale, to the extent of 50% of the share in favour of the petitioner. According to it, the consideration for the property so transferred is the investment of financial resources by the petitioner for development of the property. It is also stated that possession of the property was delivered and the document was registered by paying the stamp duty and registration charges as though it is a sale deed. The petitioner contends that the cancellation of such document, if at all, could have been done only with the participation of all the parties to it. It further contends that the share of respondents 4 to 8 is not identified and when all the persons, representing one party to an agreement, or transaction, cannot unilaterally cancel a document, few persons, out of many, constituting one party have no right to cancel it. It is urged that the 3rd respondent ought not to have entertained the deed of cancellation at all. It is further pleaded that the original document answers the description of ‘conveyance’ as defined under Section 2(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’). It is also pleaded that the prohibition contained under Rule 26(i)(k) of the A.P. Rules framed under the Registration Act (for short ‘the Rules’) gets attracted; atleast by analogy.

The writ petition is mainly contested by respondents 4 to 8. They filed a counter affidavit justifying the execution o the deed of cancellation. They state that Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules has no application to the facts of the case, sine it applies only to cases of conveyance through sale. They further plead that in case, the petitioners feel aggrieved by the deed of cancellation, they have to work out their remedies by filing a suit for declaration.

Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the agreement-cum-G.P.A. in respect of a valuable property was brought into existence with the participation of the petitioner on the one hand and 17 persons on the other hand, including respondents 4 to 8, and that the same was registered as though it is a sale deed itself. He contends that the document, insofar as it confers rights vis-à-vis the 50% share in the developed