ORDER:

Heard Sri Rapolu Baskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and Sri Y. Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 to 6.

2. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in entertaining the registration of cancellation deed dated 28.05.2014 vide document No.1728 of 2014, thereby cancelling the Development Agreement – cum – General Power of Attorney (for short ‘DAGPA’) dated 05.03.2009 vide document No.2040 of 2009 as illegal and arbitrary.

3. The admitted facts are that the respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein have executed a registered DAGPA dated 05.03.2009 vide document No.2040 of 2009 in favour of the petitioner herein in respect of land situated in various survey numbers of Motighanpur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District with various terms and conditions, creating rights and obligations on either of the parties to the document. The said registered DAGPA was cancelled by the respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein by executing and registering the cancellation deed dated 28.05.2014 vide document No.1728 of 2014 on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to discharge her obligations under the said development agreement and that she has committed breach of the terms of the said DAGPA.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.5 crores to the respondent Nos.3 to 6 at the time of execution of DAGPA and that the respondent Nos.3 to 6 never cooperated with the petitioner in obtaining various permissions for the purpose of development of the subject land and inspite of the same the petitioner has taken several developmental activities incurring huge expenditure over the subject land and it is only because of the failure of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in discharging their obligations under the DAGPA, the obligations of the petitioner could not be complied with. It is further contended that in case, if there are any disputes that arise between the parties to the DAGPA, the parties are at liberty to invoke the arbitration clause provided under the said agreement, but under no circumstances, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 are entitled to cancel the DAGPA by registering the cancellation deed thereby, cancelling the said DAGPA. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on various judgments in Gaddam Laxmaiah and others v. Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad and others, 2018 (1) ALD 532 (DB), Thota Ganga Laxmi and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 207, N. Surendra Babu, Hyderabad v. The Sub Registrar, R.R. District, Writ Appeal No.1484 of 2017 (disposed on 03.03.2022) and various other judgments of other High Courts.

5. On the other hand, Sri Y. Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6 has contended that the petitioner has committed breach of terms of DAGPA and failed to undertake any activity in the subject land even after lapse of five years, as such respondents got issued legal notice dated 29.03.2014 and inspite of receipt of the said legal notice, the petitioner failed to respond to the same and thereby, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 were forced to execute and register the cancellation deed cancelling the DAGPA. He further contended that the respondent Nos.3 to 6 are well within power to cancel DAGPA and raised objections about maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of the impugned cancellation deed, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and seek cancellation or setting aside of the said cancellation deed. He also placed reliance on various judgments in Satyapal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 767 and P. Veda Kumari and another v. Sub – Registrar, Hyde