In these three writ petitions, petitioners challenge the registration of deed of cancellation dated 16.08.2017 by the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Sangareddy, canceling the sale deeds registered in the year 2007. As the issue raised in all the three writ petitions is common, these writ petitions are considered and decided by this common order.

2. According to petitioners, their vendors are the original inamdars of inam land. It is further case of the petitioners that on introduction of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling On Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act, 1973), petitioners vendors filed declarations under Section 9 of the Act, 1973. Thereon detailed enquiry was conducted and the primary authority held that the declarants are entitled to retainable standard holdings of 11.0674 and they are liable to surrender 7.0674 standard holding. According to the petitioners, the vendors of the petitioners were entitled to four standard holdings. On appeal preferred by the vendors, the appeal was rejected by order dated 23.08.1993, confirming the primary authority decision. On challenge before this Court, matter was remitted to the primary authority. On such remittance, till date no further decision is made. In substance, it is the case of the petitioners that the vendors of the petitioners were holding valid title and interest in the property and on purchase of the subject property made by the petitioners, title had validly passed on to them from their vendors in the year 2007 and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property purchased by them. It is further case of the petitioners that though initially land was un-surveyed, but subsequently surveyed and denoted as Sy.Nos.1050, 1051 and 1052. Petitioners were issued pattadar pass books and title deeds. When petitioners approached the Sub- Registrar in the first week of September, 2017 to know the basic register value and the stamp duty payable, petitioners came to know that the documents are not being entertained for registration on the ground that deed of cancellation of sale made in the year 2007 was presented by the Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, and the same was registered on 16.08.2017. The registration of which document is under challenge in these writ petitions.

3. Extensive submissions were made by the learned counsel for petitioners, lead by senior counsel Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad appearing for counsel for petitioners in W.P. No. 31036 of 2017. The first and foremost submission raised by the learned counsel is that in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2010) 15 SCC 207 and in view of the provision contained in Rule 26 (i)(k) of A.P. Registration Rules, 1960 (Rules, 1960), it is not permissible for the Registrar to register unilateral cancellation deed of the earlier deed of sale, more so by a third party to the transaction. It is further contended that at any rate registration of such unilateral cancellation deed after ten years is not permissible in law. It is further case of learned counsel that petitioners have purchased in a valid sale transaction and title was validly vested in the vendors and passed on to petitioners and third party to the deed of conveyance registered before the registering authority cannot cancel the said deed of sale and thus, the decision of the registering authority to accept and cancel such deed of cancellation is ex facie illegal and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.

4. Learned counsel also made extensive submissions on merits of the issue.

5. However, learned Government Pleader raised preliminary objection on maintainability of writ petitions. According to the learned Government Pleader, an effective and efficacious remedy is available to the aggrieved parties under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and when such effective and efficacious civil law remedy is available, writ petitions are not maintainable and on that ground, writ petitions are liabl