THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL NO.1616 OF 2014 AND WRIT PETITION NO.19018 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara)

Heard Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel representing Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.19018 of 2008, Sri Aniketh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1616 of 2014 and Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for the official respondents. Perused the record.

W.A.No.1616 of 2014

2. The Writ Appeal is preferred by the appellants/respondent Nos.4 to 8 aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2012 in W.P.No.25686 of 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of respondent No.1/writ petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4/respondent Nos.1 to 3 representing State Government in the writ petition, whereby the writ petition filed seeking action against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for registering cancellation document dated 31.10.2009 in document No.6457 of 2009 which is unilaterally executed by the writ appellants without the knowledge and consent of the writ petitioner by partially cancelling the development agreement-cum-general power of attorney (GPA) dated 27.02.2005 to be declared as illegal and contrary to Rule 26(i)(k) of A.P. Registration Rules, 1908 (for short, ‘the Rules’) and consequently to cancel the same.

W.P.No.19018 of 2008

3. The Writ Petition is filed for declaring the action of the District Registrar of Ranga Reddy (respondent No.2) in registering the unilateral cancellation of Release deed bearing No.4972 of 2008, dated 30.06.2008 vide Release deed bearing No.73 of 2008 as illegal and to declare the said Release deed as void.

Facts of W.A.No.1616 of 2014:

4. Respondent No.1/writ petitioner is a Private Limited Company which entered into a development agreement dated 27.06.2005 with M/s. Sangam Dattaiah Goud and 16 others who include the writ appellants. The subject matter of the development agreement is a building complex to be constructed in Acs.5.07 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.136, 137 and 156 of Khajaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal with a facility to have a common approach road of 33’ x 320’. The development agreement is registered with the Registrar of Ranga Reddy at Moosapet. In terms of the development agreement, the writ petitioner paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as refundable security deposit to the writ appellants towards their undivided 1/5th share. Further, the writ appellants agreed to sell 50% of their undivided share to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner obtained permission from GHMC and HMDA and developed the property. While things stood thus, the writ appellants executed a partial cancellation of development agreement-cum- GPA on 30.10.2009 and the same was registered with the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District at Moosapet.

5. Aggrieved by the unilateral execution of partial cancellation of development agreement-cum-GPA dated 30.10.2009, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.25686 of 2011 for declaring the said document as illegal and contrary to Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules and violative of principles of natural justice. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge after a lengthy discussion about the nature of document together with the application of Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules and Rule 58 of the Rules. The finding of the learned Single Judge reads as follows:

“It has already been mentioned that Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules enables the registering authority to refuse registration of a deed of cancellation executed by only one of the parties and purports to cancel the conveyance through sale and that the agreement dated 27.06.2005 has all the ingredients of such conveyance. Assuming that the Rules has no application, it needs to be verified as to whether small fraction of one of the parties can cancel the above transaction.

In any bilateral transaction, mutual rights and obligations are defined for each of th