ORDER :

1. Heard Sri Krishna Suman, learned counsel representing Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sahas Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the 3^rd respondent i.e. the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy District at Moosapaet, Hyderabad in entertaining the registration of document dated 08.07.2011 bearing No.6153/2011 stated as “Cancellation of Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing Doc.No.3150/2011” as illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to set aside the same.

3. It was contended by the petitioner that the 4^th respondent is the owner of plot bearing No.447 admeasuring 300 sq. yards in Sy.No.78 to 93 situated at Kondapur, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and that in respect of the said property, the 4^th respondent had executed an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney along with possession on 05.10.2009 in favour of the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs.39,00,000/-, the total sale consideration was paid to the 4^th respondent, on receipt of the total sale consideration, the 4^th respondent acknowledged and entered into the agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney.

4. Petitioner further contends that the 4^th respondent lodged a complaint on 10.10.2019 before the Station House Officer, Sanathnagar Police Station alleging that the agreement of sale- cum-General Power of Attorney with possession dated 05.10.2009 is a sham document, and that it was a loan transaction between the 4^th respondent and the petitioner, and that the petitioner was duped and made to execute the agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession, thereby Cr.No.649/2009 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC, after investigation, the police filed charge sheet.

5. It was further contended that the 4^th respondent approached the 2^nd respondent seeking cancellation of document dated 05.10.2009, thereupon a memo dated 07.02.2011 was issued by the 2^nd respondent directing the 3^rd respondent to accept the cancellation of document, if it is otherwise in order, thereby the 3^rd respondent had entertained the document dated 08.07.2011 without considering that the said document was executed unilaterally without consent, which is contrary to Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Rules’).

6. Petitioner further contends that a specific remedy is provided under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for cancellation of a document or instrument, and that it is settled law that unilateral cancellation is void and illegal, and that the party aggrieved has to knock the doors of a competent Civil Court for cancellation of such document or for declaration of such document as null and void, but, instead the 4^th respondent had executed the unilateral cancellation deed.

7. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to declare the action of 3^rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same.

8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 10 SCC 767 wherein it was held that the power to register a document of cancellation cannot be construed to confer a quasi-judicial power on the registering authority, and it is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent Court, the cancellation deed can be registered and that too, after notice to the parties concerned, and that the Rules make clear that both cancellation deed as well as registration were wholly void and non-est in the eye of law.

9. The Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand (supra) observed as under:

“Section 17 of the 1908 Act deals with documents which require compulsory