SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(AP) 367

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J.
Smt. P. Veda Kumari and others - Petitioners
Vs.
The Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad And Others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION Nos.4174 OF 2008; 11045, 13863, 17002, 20958, 27568 OF 2009; and 5699 of 2010
Decided On : 18-08-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri B.Shiva Kumar, Sri J.Janakirami Reddy, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, Sri P.Venugopal
For the Respondents: Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, Sri T. Sharath, Sri R. Chandra Shekar Reddy

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 226 and 12 – Registration Act, 1908 – Section 69, 32, 17, 22, 20 – Registration Rules – Rule 26 – Registering Authorities – Execution cancellation – Irrationality and Impropriety – Illegality – Lord Diplock – Vlaimant parties – No dispute of facts in the present cases since all deeds were executed unilaterally by the executants and those documents were registered by Registering Authorities documents fall under two categories of cases one category of cases relates to period prior to amendment of Rule 26(k) of Registration Rules with effect whereas second category relates to registration of documents by Registering Authorities in violation of said Rules after amendment Provided that registering officer shall dispense with execution of cancellation deeds by executant and claimant parties to previously registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him if cancellation deed is executed by a Civil Judge or a Government Officer competent to execute Government orders declaring properties contained in previously registered conveyance on sale to be Government or Assigned or Endowment lands or properties not registerable by any provision of law – Held, Document may be valid at time of presentation but is required to comply with the Rules at the time of registration and if he violated Rule 26(k) of Rules it can be definitely said that he committed procedural irregularity – It is well established rule of administrative law that an authority which is vested with power, may exercise it rightly or wrongly but this Court while exercising power of judicial review subject to its limitations would interfere with such actions and one of such limitations for exercising judicial review is availability of alternative remedy and discharge of public law duty – Merely because respondent is a State under Article 12, this Court cannot interfere as held by Supreme Court in Joshi Technologies International order to exercise jurisdiction by this Court action of statutory authorities must be without any alternative authority and in discharge of public law duty – Appeal dismissed.

ORDER :

1. The following writ petitions are filed for setting aside deeds of cancellation of sale deeds and the gift settlement deeds unilaterally by the executants.

W.P. No.

Nature of Deed

Date of Execution of Deed

4174 of 2008

Cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed

18.09.2007

11045 of 2009

Cancellation of sale deed

25.05.2009

13863 of 2009

Cancellation of sale deed

30.06.2099

17002 of 2009

Deed of Cancellation of sale deed

23.07.2009

20958 of 2009

Cancellation of sale deed

07.08.2009

27568 of 2009

Cancellation of sale deed

18.11.2009

5699 of 2010

Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed

30.01.2010

2. The factual aspects of the matter involved in the Writ Petitions are not necessary for the disposal of these Writ Petitions and hence they are not considered.

3. The consideration of the writ petitions involved the following points:

1. Whether there can be cancellation of a registered document unilaterally by the executant and registration of the same by the Registering Authorities and whether the same is valid under law ?

2. Whether a Writ Petition is maintainable for setting aside such deeds of Cancellation ?

4. There is no dispute of facts in the present cases since all the deeds were executed unilaterally by the executants and those documents were registered by the Registering Authorities. The documents fall under two categories of cases; one category of cases relates to the period prior to amendment of Rule 26(k) of the Registration Rules with effect from 02.06.2014, whereas the second category relates to the registration of documents by the Registering Authorities in violation of the said Rules after amendment.

5. The erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh framed Rules called 'the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908' under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908. The unamended Rule 26 reads as follows.

26. (i) Every document shall, before acceptance or registration examined by the Registering Officer to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act and in these rules have been complied with, for instance :

(a) that it has been presented in the proper office (Sections 28, 29 and 30);

(b) that the person is entitled to present it (Sections 32 and 40)

(c) that if it is a non-testamentary document and relates to immovable property, it contains a description of property sufficient to identify the same and fulfils the requirements of Rules 18 to 20:

(d) that if it is written in a language not commonly used in the District and not understood by the Registering Officer it is accompanied by a true translation into a language commonly used in the District and also by true copy (Section 19);

(e) that if it contains a map or plan, it is accompanied by true copies of such map or plan as required by Section 21(4);

(f) that it contains no unattested interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations, which in his opinion require to be attested as required by Section 20(1);

(g) that if the document is one other than a will it has been presented within the time prescribed by Sections 23 to 26;

(h) that it bears the date of its execution and does not bear a date anterior to the date of purchase of stamp papers and the document is written on a date subsequent to the date of presentation.

(i) that if the date is written in any document other a will presented for registration after the death of the testator according to both the British and the Indian calendars, these dates tally; and

(j) that if the presentant is not personally known to the Registering Officer, he is accompanied by such identifying witness with whose testimony the Registering Officer may be satisfied;

6. Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the execution of cancellation deeds by executant and claimant parties to the previously registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him if












































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top