IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.31699 of 2015 DATE 28.11.2025 Between:

Kasula Mahalakshmi … Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, represented by it Principal Secretary, Revenue Department(Stamps & Registration), Hyderabad and eleven others.

… Respondents

O R D E R

Heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kotagiri Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Malipeddi Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 7.

2.

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the

3^rd respondent in registering the Deed of Cancellation of Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 02.07.2015 in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.7.01 guntas situated in various survey numbers of Kallakal Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District, unilaterally, without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity to the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.7.01 guntas situated in different survey numbers of Kallakal Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. The 5^th respondent, who is brother-in-law of the petitioner, approached the petitioner and offered to sell the subject land for a sale consideration of Rs.1,63,80,000/-, and accordingly, entered into an agreement of sale-cum-GPA and the same was registered vide Document No.1703/2015 and delivered possession of the same.

4.

The petitioner further contends that from the date of entering into the said agreement with the 5^th respondent, who had delivered vacant physical possession of the subject land, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

5.

During last week of September, 2015, respondent Nos.6 and 7 tried to destroy the standing crop, when the same was objected by the petitioner, it was stated that the subject property was acquired by them from the 5^th respondent by way of a registered deed of settlement dated 04.07.2015. Thereby, he came to know that the deed of cancellation was executed on 01.07.2015 and presented it before the 3^rd respondent on 02.07.2015 without the knowledge of the petitioner. On obtaining a copy of the deed of cancellation, the petitioner came to know that the 5^th respondent has unilaterally presented the document before the 3^rd respondent seeking cancellation of agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession on 24.03.2015. Therefore, being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

6.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the official respondents have absolutely no power to cancel the document unilaterally without hearing the petitioner or providing an opportunity to her. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that Section 26(i)(k) of the Registration Rules, 1908 specifically mandates that the Sub- Registrars cannot receive, process and register the cancellation deeds unilaterally, and that the aggrieved party has to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court.

7.

Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his contentions, relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi v/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 15 SCC 207 and Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v/s. S.P.Velayutham, 2022 SCC Online SC 544, wherein the issue considered was that whether the deed of cancellation of an agreement of sale-cum-GPA along with possession can be cancelled unilaterally by the District Register and whether such registration of cancellation deed is valid in law.

8.

On the other hand, the contesting respondent Nos. 5 & 7 filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that the 5^th respondent lawfully cancelled the agreement of sale-cum-GPA on