THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR W.P.No.27457 OF 2012

ORDER:

Heard Sri K. Mannam Konda representing Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the official respondents.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the action of respondent No.1 in registering cancellation deed, vide Doc. No.10217 of 2011 dated 18.09.2011 by cancelling petitioner’s Registered Agreement of Sale vide Document No.9867 of 2007 dated 07.09.2007 as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that during the year 2010, some of the third parties claimed rights over the subject property and illegally encroached the land and wanted to dispossess. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached before the Civil Court by way of O.S.No.103 of 2010 and the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners and also protected their property.

4. Pursuant to the decree passed by the competent Civil Court for the purpose of executing the registered sale deed when the petitioners approached respondent No.1 for obtaining Encumbrance Certificate, the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioner were shocked to notice that the title deed in favour of the petitioners was cancelled by way of a cancellation deed vide Document No.10217 of 2011. The petitioners after obtaining a certified copy noticed that the unofficial respondents had unilaterally cancelled the registered agreement of sale without even issuing notice to the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the unofficial respondents are not parties to the registered agreement of sale executed in favour of the petitioners; therefore their cancellation is null and void. It is further submitted that as per Section 32 and 35 of the Indian Registration Act, when a document is presented by a person other than the one who executed it, the registering officer may refuse the registration. Under Section 35, the registering officer must be satisfied that the document presented for registration is in fact executed by the person who appears before him and admits its execution. Registration can also be refused if the executant denies execution or if the person who purportedly executed the document is deceased. Without following the prescribed procedure, the respondent No.1 unilaterally cancelled the document.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that as per Rule 26(k)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Rules under Registration Act, 1908, the registering authority shall ensure that at the time of presenting the registration of cancellation deed for previously registered deeds, such cancellation deed needs to be accompanied by declaration showing mutual consent or orders of a competent Civil Court or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.27204 of 2015 dated 22.08.2025.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the administrative authorities have inherent powers to recall or revoke their own orders if such orders are found to be obtained by way of playing fraud on public authority.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contends that in terms of judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.9512 of 2003, dated 24.10.2025, wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that the true owner of the property can execute a cancellation deed for cancellation of the previously registered fraudulent sale deed. Therefore, the respondent herein registered the cancellation deed of agreement on 16.11.2011 vide document No.10217 of 2011 since the Agreement of Sale cum GPA executed by G.Leela Kumari and G.Sekhar is a fraudulent transaction.

10. Perused the record. I have given my earnest considerations to the contentions argued by both the parties. Under Rule 26 (i)(k)

of Andhra Pradesh Rules under Regis