The power to cancel registered sale deeds lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of competent civil Courts, and any attempt by administrative authorities to do so is void and without legal effect.

ORDER :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

The petitioners, who claim to be the absolute owners in possession of 30 guntas and 20 guntas respectively in Sy.No.14/3 of Kodigehalli Village under Registered sale deeds dated 30.03.1992, have approached this Court, calling in question the impugned order dated 29.04.2010 passed by respondent No.1-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, whereby the registration of their sale deeds have been cancelled by invoking Rule 17(iii) read with Rule 123 of the KARNATAKA REGISTRATION RULES , 1965 (‘Rules, 1965’ for short).

Brief facts:

2. The original owners, Hanumanthappa and Venkatappa had sold 30 guntas and 20 guntas in Sy.No.14/3 to the petitioners through registered sale deeds dated 30.03.1992, and the petitioners’ names were mutated in the revenue records. Sy.No.14/3 was initially notified for acquisition under notification dated 04.01.1985 followed by final notification on 22.09.1986 for the benefit of the respondent No.5-NTI Housing Cooperative Society. The petitioners had called in question the acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.33211-212/1994, which came to be dismissed. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) issued an endorsement on 17.06.2009, along with the award in L.A.C.No.47/1986-87, recording that only 1 acre 39 guntas of Sy.No.14/3 was acquired and that 2 acres belonging to the petitioners’ vendors was not part of the acquisition. It is stated that respondent No.5 applied for cancellation of the petitioners’ sale deeds, leading to respondent No.1 issuing a show cause notice and ultimately passing the impugned order canceling the registration of the sale deeds.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Commissioner has no authority in law to cancel a registered document, such power is exclusively in the domain of the Civil Court. Relying upon Rule 123 of Rules, 1965 submits that the said Rule permits only recording of a cancellation when a subsequent document itself cancels or modifies an earlier one. It does not empower the authority to cancel a sale deed. Neither Rule 17(iii) of the Rules, 1965 confer any substantive power. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction, without notice and without recording any findings. The land has been de-notified excluded from acquisition and therefore the sale in 1992 was valid.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 contends that the petitioners’ sale deeds were executed during the pendency of acquisition and therefore their registration is liable to be annulled. Further, it is stated that the land was acquired for the housing society and therefore the sale deeds executed by the vendors require cancellation under Rule 123 of the Rules, 1965 and the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the order, which warrants no interference.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether respondent No.1-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru had a legal authority to cancel the registration of the petitioners’ sale deed dated 03.03.1992 by invoking Rule 17(iii) read with Rule 123 of the Rules, 1965, and whether the impugned order dated 29.04.2010 is sustainable in law?

7. The registered sale deed dated 30.03.1992 in favour of the petitioners were cancelled by respondent No.1-Special Deputy Commissioner by order dated 29.04.2010. At the outset, it must be noted that the Deputy Commissioner is not a registering authority within the meaning of the Registration Act, 1908, which recognizes only Inspector General of Registration, District Registrars and Sub-Registrars as registering authorities. Resp