THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.23605 of 2013

O R D E R

None appears for the petitioners. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 (respondent No.3 is impleaded as per the Court Order dated 22.11.2018 in WPMP No.32477 of 2013).

2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the 2^nd respondent i.e. the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Ranga Reddy District, in passing an order of refusal dated 29.07.2013, as illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to the 2^nd respondent to complete the process of registration of Deed of Cancellation of Agreement of Sale-

cum-Power of Attorney.

3.

The case of the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, in brief, is that they had executed an Agreement of Sale- cum-General Power of Attorney on 21.04.2005 in favour of Totakura Jangaiah Yadav and Totakura Srisailam Yadav in respect of property in Survey No.81 situated at Boduppal Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the said document was registered, bearing document No.3737 of 2005. Since, the agreement holders were acting against their wishes, the petitioners intended to cancel the said document and accordingly, approached the 2^nd respondent and presented the document of cancellation for registration. The 2^nd respondent by the impugned order dated 29.07.2013 refused to register the document presented by the petitioners stating that for cancellation of the document, the consent of both the parties is necessary. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 29.07.2013, shows that the cancellation deed is not signed by both the Principal/Vendors and Agents/Vendees to complete the transaction, whereas as per C & IG (R&S) Memo No.RC.No.General/Com/18492/2009 dated 30.12.2009 & Circular Memo No.G1/Cam/4028/2010 dated 31.03.2010 for Cancellation of AGPA, the consent of both the parties is necessary. Moreover the judgment mentioned in the document vide W.P.No.25983 of 2011, is applicable to that particular transaction. Hence, in view of the above circular instruments, the 2^nd respondent refused to register the document under Section 70 of the Registration Act, as Refusal No.23/2013 dated 29.07.2013.

5.

The impugned order specifically mentions that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the same, an appeal lies to the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy (East) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order. However, the petitioners, without availing the said remedy, had approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6.

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the matter, since the petitioners have the efficacious remedy of appeal, this Court is of the view that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the District Registrar concerned, in accordance with law. Since the Writ Petition is pending on the file of this Court since, 2013, if the petitioners file appeal within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be treated as having been filed within limitation. On such appeal being filed, the District Registrar concerned is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six (06) weeks thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

7.

Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

8.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 14.11.2025 GJ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.23605 of 2013 Date:14.11.2025 GJ