ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the third respondent in accepting the Sale Deed, dated 19.10.2022 vide document No.10698/2022 for registration executed by the petitioners 1 to 3 herein represented by their Power of Attorney Holder, the fourth respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (‘the Act, 1908” for brevity) and the Rules made thereunder and also sought for a consequential direction to cancel the registration of the said sale deed.

2. Heard Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. A. Chandana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and Sri D. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the sixth respondent.

3. This Writ Petition is filed by four petitioners. The petitioners 1 to 3 are the original land owners of the property covered by the impugned sale deed. The fourth petitioner, who is also the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, is one of the Power of Attorney Holders under registered General Power of Attorneys (“GPAs” for short) dated 28.03.1994 and 28.03.1995 vide document Nos.875/1994 and 68/1995 along with the fourth respondent herein.

4. The only ground on which the present Writ Petition is filed is that the petitioners 1 to 3 herein have executed registered GPAs vide document Nos.875/1994 and 68/1995 in respect of the land, which is the subject matter of the impugned sale deed appointing the fourth petitioner herein and the fourth respondent herein as Attorneys with a right to alienate the land, which was the subject matter of the said GPAs, but the third respondent herein allowed the registration of the impugned Sale Deed executed by the fourth respondent herein on behalf of the petitioners 1 to 3 herein by virtue of the GPAs vide document Nos.875/1994 and 68/1995 without the fourth petitioner herein participating in the said execution of the impugned Sale Deed. Thus, it is contended that the above referred two GPAs were executed in favour of the fourth petitioner and the fourth respondent jointly and both of them have to act jointly in order to execute any document by virtue of the power conferred on them under the said GPAs.

5. Having considered the said contention raised in the Writ Petition, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioners as to how this Writ Petition is filed on behalf of the petitioners 1 to 3 herein represented by the fourth petitioner herein alone without the participation of the fourth respondent herein who is also one of the Power of Attorney Holders under the above said GPAs and also asked the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners 1 to 3 are ready to come before this Court supporting the case of the fourth petitioner in challenging the impugned Sale Deed. Learned counsel for the fourth petitioner stated that the petitioners 1 to 3 are not ready to come forward to question the impugned sale deed personally along with the fourth petitioner. In view of the said situation, this Court raised a question as to how the Writ Petition is maintainable at the instance of the petitioners 1 to 3, if they are not aggrieved by the impugned Sale Deed and the fourth petitioner is only one of the Power of Attorney Holders who is supposed to act on behalf of the petitioners 1 to 3. Confronted with the same, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the fourth petitioner, in his individual capacity also filed the present Writ Petition and therefore, the Writ Petition is maintainable though the petitioners 1 to 3 are not ready to come before this Court personally and though the fourth petitioner alone is not entitled to represent the petitioners 1 to 3.

6. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the petitioners 1 to 3, who are the owners of the land, which is the subject matter of the impugned Sale Deed, are not aggrieved by the e