THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7957 OF 2009

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the letter No.RO(OB) 248, dated 24.03.2009 issued by the second respondent as bad, illegal without jurisdiction, arbitrary consequently direct the respondents not to receive and admit any deed of cancellation in respect of the agreements of sale-cum- GPAs dated 08.03.2003 and 05.08.2003 for a total extent of Ac.68- 00 in Survey No.46, situated at Rayadurg Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the interest of justice and pass....”

2. Heard Sri N.M.Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Nalla Mukund Reddy and Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Revenue (Stamps and Registration) appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. It is contended that originally the unofficial respondent along with 18 others executed various agreements of sale-cum-GPAs dated 08.03.2003, 30.03.2003 and 05.08.2003, for a extent of Ac.68- 00 out of the total extent of Ac.84-30 in Survey No.46, situated at Rayadurg Village, Serlingampalli Mandal, Rangareddy District in favour of the petitioner and his associates under sale consideration. As per Clause 7(II) of the agreements of sale-cum-GPA entered between the parties, the balance sale consideration will be paid as per terms of the agreement.

4. It was further contended that the unofficial respondent approached this Court by way of W.P.No.1729 of 2009 seeking direction to mutate their names in the revenue records, this Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition vide order dated 05.03.2009 directing the Tahsildar, Serlingampally Mandal to mutate the names as per the orders passed in Application No.1146 of 2002 in C.S.No.7 of 1958, dated 09.10.2002. When the petitioner’s vendors conferred powers to enter into Sub-Contract to execute sale deed in favour of prospective purchasers as the same is independent from Clause 14(vi) to (ix) of the said agreement of sale- cum-GPA, the petitioner as well as purchasers executed sale deed in accordance with law and delivered possession. Since no mutation was effected the unofficial respondents approached this Court by way of W.P.No.1729 of 2009, which was disposed of on 05.03.2009 directing the respondents to effect the mutation. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, 3^rd respondent approached the 1^st respondent seeking cancellation of the sale deed executed by the petitioner by raising various contentions and sought for cancellation of sale deed by relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.9512 of 2003, wherein the 2^nd respondent passed the impugned orders. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that such power of cancelling the document does not vest with the 2^nd respondent unless the allegation of fraud and non-payment of sale consideration is proved by the competent authority. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that even otherwise in terms of the Clause 12 of the agreement in the event of any disputes, the parties have to avail the remedy of arbitration but they have no right to seek for cancellation of the document unilaterally.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Stamps and Registration) vehemently contended that as per the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.9512 of 2003, the person who has ex-facie, having right, whether such right is registered or not can always approach the registering authority, with a request to cancel a Sale Deed, which was registered earlier by such registering authority by showing that subsequent registration was obtained by way of fraud by a person, who is not entitled to transfer the property or such transfer was registered by playing fraud on the owner or on the st