Dilip B. Bhosale, J.

These two writ petitions are placed before this Bench pursuant to the common order dated 30.04.2015 passed by learned Single Judge referring the question framed therein to a Division Bench to settle its conflicting view with the judgment in Vasudeva Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2012 (6) ALD 178. The question referred is "whether unilateral cancellation of Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) and registration thereof under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'Registration Act') is permissible in law?"

2. In Vasudeva Realtors (supra), learned single Judge of this Court considered similar question in the light of the facts that respondents therein had executed a Development Agreement-cum-GPA with the petitioners and then they unilaterally executed a deed of partial cancellation thereof and the same was registered by the registering authorities. The action of cancellation of the Development Agreement-cum-GPA was challenged in the writ petition. While dealing with the question, with reference to Rule 26 (i) (k) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'the Rules'), learned judge observed that "once this rule is to prevent the unilateral cancellation of concluded transactions of sale, there is no reason why, it cannot be extended to the transaction, which has all the ingredients of sale". In any bilateral transaction, it was further observed that "mutual rights and obligations are defined for each of them. Whenever more than two persons constitute a party namely vendors and purchasers, their rights and obligations are joint and several, unless a different arrangement is indicated in the document itself. It may be possible for a party, in its entirety, namely, vendors or purchasers, as a whole, to resile from transaction. It is however impermissible for a small portion of the parties to put an end to the entire transaction unilaterally". The observations made in paragraph-15 of the judgment are also relevant, which read thus:

15. It may be true that a cursory reading of Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules gives an impression that the provision covers mostly the deeds of cancellation of sale deeds. However, the use of expression "conveyance" and the circumstances that warranted making of the said rule, would lead to a conclusion that it applies not only to cancellation of sale deeds, pure and simple, but also to the transactions, that have the ingredients and characteristics of a sale. The best way to understand its purport would be to see whether the transaction, which is sought to be cancelled conferred any final rights, may be in respect of a part of the property, on the other party. The answer is 'yes', the registration of such document gets prohibited by analogy, if not the application of the principle, underlying the rule.

(emphasis supplied)

3. When the judgment in Vasudeva Realtors (supra) was noticed by the learned Judge, dealing with the instant writ petitions, he expressed divergent view and referred the matter to settle the question by a Division Bench. The relevant observations made in the order of reference read thus:

"With due respect to the learned Judge, I am unable to convince myself to concur with the said view. As noted hereinbefore, the Registration Act being one of the procedural or adjutant laws governing the transfer/conveyance of properties, its predominant object is to provide orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to transactions relating to immovable properties and protection from fraud and forgery of documents of transfer. As held by the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamps & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656, mere registration of a document will not by itself take away the rights of the parties which otherwise cannot be taken away under substantive laws governing the transaction in question.

In the instant case, if the Development Agreement-cum-GPAs have created any rights in respo