Unilateral cancellation of agreement violates principles of natural justice.

Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the registration of the cancellation of the document No.2747 of 2005 dated 28. 2005 executed by the respondents 4 to 9 in favour of the petitioner and four others on 13. 2005 bearing Document No.1456 of 2005 at the office of the first respondent herein.

2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3.

3. The case of the petitioner who seeks the writ, is that he along with four others entered into an agreement for purchase of the undivided share having an extent of 2.50 acres in Old Patta No.7, Alandur Zamin, comprised in Survey Nos.5/1, 10/1, 17/1, 18/1, 19/1, 13/1, 14/1, 45/1, 48/1, 89, 91, 93/2, 22, 23/1, 24/1, 25/1, 26, 30/1, 37, 47/1, 61/1, 90, 92/2 and 94/2, Saidapet Taluk, from one R.Vasantha and five others for a valuable consideration on 13. 2005; that in order to verify the veracity of the vendors statement, they sought for certified copies of the two settlement deeds; that they satisfied with the same; that they also sought for the encumbrance certificate for a period of 20 years from 1. 1942 to 35. 1969 and also from 6. 1969 to 312. 1986 for a period of 18 years wherefrom they found the property without any encumbrance whatsoever; that by way of abundant caution, the agreement of sale was presented for registration on 13. 2005 by the purchasers as well as the vendors; that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-was agreed between the parties as advance; that for the purpose of registration, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was shown as advance in the document itself; that the document was registered, but was kept pending for the production of the identity card of one person among the vendors; that it has also been produced; that even then, the delay was caused; that the first respondent issued a receipt on 13. 2005 for the payment of registration fees of Rs.6,100/-; that the matter was pending; that while the matter stood thus, since the authority did not return the document, a writ petition was filed in WP No.15702 of 2005 wherein there was a direction issued by this Court to the respondent therein subject to the condition of the petitioner filing an undertaking to pay the stamp duty pursuant to Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act with further undertaking not to encumber or alienate the property in question; that even after the production of the same, it was kept pending; that the stamp duty has been paid; that while the matter stood thus, he once again applied for encumbrance certificate on 112. 2006; that on receipt of the same, he came to know that a deed of cancellation was presented by the respondents 4 to 9 on 28. 2005; that following the same, the original document dated 25. 2005 has also been cancelled unilaterally; and that such an act was done with malafide intention.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in view of Sec.32A of the Registration Act, there is no question of any unilateral cancellation of an agreement; that by that act, much prejudice has been caused; and that under the circumstances, the order of cancellation has got to be quashed by issuing a writ of this Court.

5. Contrary to the above contentions, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that Sec.32A of the Act has been amended only with effect from 26. 2006; but, the agreement was entered into on 13. 2005; that the same was registered on 25. 2005; that such a cancellation has taken place on 28. 2005 which was prior to the amendment of Sec.32A on 26. 2006; that the same was also not given retrospective effect; that under the circumstances, the act of cancellation unilaterally done by the first respondent cannot be questioned, and hence, the writ petition has got to be dismissed.

6. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.

7. This Court is of the