THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.9840 of 2015

ORDER:

Heard Sri Hasnain Khan, learned counsel representing Sri M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.6, and perused the record.

2. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in entertaining the cancellation of sale deed dated 04.01.2014 vide Doc.No.122 of 2014 presented by respondent No.7 as arbitrary.

3. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2013, the respondent No.7 approached the petitioner through a mediator offering to sell his property of the house plot bearing No.769-B in Sy.No.201 admeasuring 200 sq. yards situated at Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and basing on the documents produced by respondent No.7, the petitioner agreed to purchase the said property and respondent No.7 executed a registered sale deed dated 25.06.2013 in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.7 after receiving the entire sale consideration, sold the property to the petitioner by delivering possession. Thereafter the petitioner constructed a boundary wall, rooms and obtained electricity connection.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.7 kept quiet till July, 2013 and thereafter lodged a complaint before the official respondents, based on which, the police, Cyberabad registered a case against the petitioner.

5. It is further contended that respondent No.7, pursuant to the registration of FIR against the petitioner, approached the official respondent Nos.3 to 5 and submitted representation on 10.09.2013 and thereafter, respondent Nos.3 to 5, in violation of the provisions of Stamps and Registration Act and Registration Rules, executed the cancellation of sale deed dated 04.01.2014 cancelling the sale deed vide Doc.No.10280 of 2013 dated 25.06.2013 without issuing any notice or providing any opportunity to the petitioner.

6. Though, the Writ Petition is filed in the month of April, 2013, no counter-affidavit is filed by respondents.

7. Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Rules states as under :

“26(i) (k) (i) The registering officer shall ensure at the time of

preparation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously

registered deed of conveyances on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executant and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale:

Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the execution of cancellation deeds by executant and claimant parties to the previously registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him if the cancellation deed is executed by a Civil Judge or a government officer competent to execute government orders declaring the properties contained in the previously registered conveyance on sale to be government or assigned or endowment lands or properties not registerable by any provision of law.”

provision of law.”

8. The District Registrar has absolutely no power to cancel a registered document except by way of a decree passed by competent Civil Court under the provisions of the Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

9. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thota Ganga Laxmi and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2010) 15 SCC 207 and batch, held :

“5. In this connection, we may also refer to Rule 26(k)(i) relating to Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 … …

…. Rule also supports the observations we have made above. It is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent court that the cancellation de