Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
V.Sujatha, J.
Sri Udaya Bhanu Associates – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 41920, 41921, 41922 of 2015, 367, 484, 485 of 2017
Decided On : 19-04-2023
The Court held that the cancellation of the registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) was unilateral and not permissible in law. The Court also held that the District Registrar did not have the judicial power to entertain an appeal once the documents were registered by both parties and that the order of the District Registrar should be set aside and treated as non-est in the eye of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a builder, entered into an agreement with the respondent society to settle disputes related to the society's land and construct flats for the society's members. The petitioner was to be compensated for his efforts through the transfer of the remaining land. The petitioner constructed 15,000 square feet of flats and offered to register them in the society's name, but the society refused. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the society's refusal to accept the flats. The society filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner had failed to fulfill the terms of the agreement and that the society had the right to cancel the agreement. The District Registrar allowed the society's appeal and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the cancellation deeds. The petitioner filed a revision petition to the government, which held that the District Registrar did not have the judicial power to entertain the appeal and that the order of the District Registrar should be set aside. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps also issued directions to the District Registrar to cancel the cancellation deeds. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the cancellation of the registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the cancellation of the registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA was unilateral and not permissible in law. The Court also held that the District Registrar did not have the judicial power to entertain an appeal once the documents were registered by both parties and that the order of the District Registrar should be set aside and treated as non-est in the eye of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent Society has called for a General Body meeting before resorting to cancellation of the Agreement of Sale -cum-GPA? 2. Whether the Agreement for Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney coupled with recitals of Development/construction executed by the Society in favour of the petitioner can be treated as a conveyance?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * A registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA cannot be unilaterally cancelled. * The District Registrar does not have the judicial power to entertain an appeal once the documents are registered by both parties. * The cancellation of the registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA was unilateral and not permissible in law.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the cancellation of the registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA. The Court also directed the Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Visakhapatnam, to cancel the execution of 3 cancellation deeds dtd. 21/12/2015, registered vide document Nos.9680, 9679 and 9681 of 2015, in view of the settled legal position on this issue as discussed above and also in compliance with the order passed by the 1st respondent vide Memo No.REV01-REGSOMISC/10/2019- REGN.1-1, dtd. 3/5/2020, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
JUDGMENT
1. As the issue involved in all these cases is one and the same, with consent of all, these writ petitions are decided by this common order.
i) W.P. No.41920 of 2015:
The writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent dt.17/12/2015 in Appeal No.1 of 2015 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unilateral, without jurisdiction and to grant..."
ii) W.P. No.41921 of 2015:
The writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent dt.17/12/2015 in Appeal No.3 of 2015 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unilateral, without jurisdiction and to grant..."
iii) W.P. No.41922 of 2015:
The writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent dt.17/12/2015 in Appeal No.2 of 2015 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unilateral, without jurisdiction and to grant..."
iv) W.P. No.367 of 2017:
The writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari call for the records pertaining to the Impugned proceedings vide Doc. No.9680 of 2015 dtd. 21/12/2015 passed by 4th respondent i.e. the Deed of Cancellation and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, void, abinitio, without jurisdiction and violation of the provisions of the Act and consequentially suspend the proceedings vide Doc. No.9680 of 2015, dtd. 21/12/2015 issued by the 4th respondent..."
v) W.P. No.484 of 2017:
The writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari call for the records pertaining to the Impugned proceedings vide Doc. No.9679 of 2015 dtd. 21/12/2015 passed by 4th respondent i.e. the Deed of Cancellation and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, void, abinitio, without jurisdiction and violation of the provisions of the Act and consequentially suspend the proceedings vide Doc. No.9679 of 2015, dtd. 21/12/2015 issued by the 4th respondent..."
vi) W.P. No.485 of 2017:
The writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari call for the records pertaining to the Impugned proceedings vide Doc. No.9681 of 2015 dtd. 21/12/2015 passed by 4th respondent i.e. the Deed of Cancellation and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, void, abinitio, without jurisdiction and violation of the provisions of the Act and consequentially suspend the proceedings vide Doc. No.9681 of 2015, dtd. 21/12/2015 issued by the 4th respondent..."
2. As the issue, petitioners as well as the respondents involved in all these cases is one and the same, all these writ petitions are decided by way of a common order.
The petitioner, initially filed 3 writ petitions i.e. W.P. Nos.41920, 41921 and 41922 of 2015 challenging 3 individual orders passed in 3 Appeals, dtd. 17/2/2015, and later on filed the other 3 writ petitions, i.e., W.P. Nos.367, 484 and 485 of 2017 challenging the 3 cancellation deeds, dtd. 21/12/2015, which were registered pursuant to the impugned orders of the District Reg
A registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA cannot be unilaterally cancelled.
Unilateral cancellation of the Development Agreement-cum-GPA by one party to the detriment of another party is not permissible under the Indian Contract Act.
A writ petition is not maintainable to challenge the registration of a cancellation deed executed unilaterally by the settlor of a settlement deed. The proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to fil....
A General Power of Attorney can be revoked unless coupled with interest, and unilateral cancellation by the principal is permissible if the agency lacks such interest.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Registering Authority has no power to unilaterally cancel a settlement deed, and such unilateral cancellation is void and non-est in law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
