M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. Heard Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal, Counsel for petitioners, and the learned Advocate-General for the State of Telangana, for respondents. The petitioners in this writ petition have questioned the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in unilaterally cancelling two registered sale deeds being document bearing Nos. 11887/2007 dated 23.5.2007 and 11887/2007 dated 23.5.2007 in respect of lands in Kandi Chimnapur Village, Sanga Reddy Mandal, (now Kandi Mandal), Sanga Reddy District.

2. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing for petitioners, contended that the power to cancel documents is a power vested in the civil Court under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; such power, which is judicial in nature, cannot be conferred on an Executive Authority like the 3rd respondent, and this violates the doctrine of 'Separation of Powers'; and Rule 26(k), introduced in the State of Telangana vide G.O. Ms. No. 121 Revenue (Registration-I) Department dated 1.6.2016 with retrospective effect from 2.6.2014, and Rule 243 thereof which authorizes an Executive Authority like the Tahsildar to execute a document cancelling a previously registered document effecting interest in immoveable properties listed in Section 22-A by unauthorized persons and directing the registering officers to register it, also suffers from the same vice.

3. He contended that even if the said Rules are valid, under Rule 243, only a competent authority or officer can execute the deeds of cancellation of previously registered documents, and there is no notification authorizing the 2nd respondent to execute documents cancelling such previously registered documents; and in the absence of such notification, the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to present the cancellation deeds before the 3rd respondent, and the 3rd respondent therefore could not have registered the said documents.

4. He contended that it is dangerous to confer power on Executive Authorities to adjudicate issues of title, and in particular, Officials of the State Government to adjudicate title of the State Government; and that in the hands of what he called "unscrupulous" Government Officials the citizen's property and life would be in peril.

5. He also pointed out that if the State is the owner of property as alleged by it, the common principle that 'no third-party can convey title to such property', would apply, and the State can also protect its properties in judicial forums, but it cannot confer judicial powers on Revenue Officials and make them adjudicate title to land.

6. The Counsel for petitioners relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and another v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association and another, (2012) 10 SCC 353, wherein the Supreme Court had upheld the decision of High Court of Gujarat which had set aside Rules framed by the State of Gujarat conferring adjudicatory powers on the President of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, constituted under the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Rules, 1982, permitting appointment of even a Secretary to the Government as President of the Revenue Tribunal under the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957.

7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General (Telangana), appearing on behalf of respondents, relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Vatumalli Laxmi Prasanna v. The State of Telangana and others, WP No. 30891 of 2017 and Batch, dated 21.9.2017, and also the judgment of another learned Single Judge of this Court in P. Veda Kumar and others v. The Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and others, 2017 SCC Online Hyderabad 272, which is followed in Smt. Vatumalli Laxmi Prasanna's case (supra). He also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2017 (2) ALD 144 (SC) : (2016) 10 SCC 767 and contended that unilateral registration of an extinguishment deed can