2023 Supreme(AP) 1535
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
V. Sujatha, J.
M/s. Sri Udaya Bhanu Associates, Rep. By its Managing Partner - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration And Stamps) Department and ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.41920, 41921 and 41922 of 2015, W.P.Nos.367, 484 and 485 of 2017,
Decided On : 19-04-2023
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri N. Ashwani Kumar
For the Respondent: Sri K.V. Ratna Rao
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Registration Act, 1908 - Cancellation of documents - The petitioner challenged the cancellation of three Agreements of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney and registration of subsequent cancellation deeds by the District Registrar, asserting that the process was unilateral and without jurisdiction. The Court found the District Registrar's order illegal. The agreements were executed following a General Body resolution, indicating mutual consent was required for any cancellation. The unilateral registration of cancellation deeds was held to violate principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-4, 30-39)
(B) Nature of consent - It is incumbent upon the registrar to ensure that cancellation deeds are executed with the mutual consent of the parties involved, failing which such registrations would not be valid. (Paras 24-28)
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - This case underscores the limits of jurisdiction exercised under Article 226, particularly regarding unilateral actions by authorities without proper legal backing or mutual agreement. (Paras 10-14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash the registration of cancellation deeds following the issuance of unilateral orders by the District Registrar without proper representation or consent from all parties involved. A series of agreements had been established to oversee land development and management in a cooperative society context.
Findings of Court:
The Court directed the registrar to cancel the unilateral registration of documents affirming they were in contravention of established legal protocols requiring mutual consent for such actions. Therefore, the input of all relevant parties was prerequisite for any cancellations to take effect. (Paras 30-39)
Issues: The legality of unilateral actions concerning the cancellation of registered agreements and whether the principles of natural justice were upheld in the registrar's decision-making process were the core issues addressed. (Paras 1-4, 10-14)
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's right to due process was reaffirmed, emphasizing that any deed's cancellation requires the involvement and consent of all parties affected by such actions. The Court reiterated that unilateral cancellation without due process is essentially void. (Paras 30-39)
Result: Writ petitions Nos. 367, 484, and 485 of 2017 allowed; the three cancellation deeds set aside.
ORDER :
V. Sujatha, J.
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 dated 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, dated 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 dated 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, dated 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 dated 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, dated 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, dated 17.02.2015, 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, dated 21.12.2015, which were registered pursuant to the impugned orders of the District Registrar, dated
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
