A cancellation of a registered deed by an administrative authority following notice and hearing of interested parties does not fall under the prohibition of 'unilateral cancellation', and such administrative decisions cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction on disputed questions of fact.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings No.E3/1396/2018, dated 09.06.2020, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 204 square yards situated at Mankammathota, Karimnagar, with tin shed constructed therein bearing No.7-2-1125/A, (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’), having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.3896 of 2019, dated 09.04.2019, from one Saleem Khan, who got the said land regularized under G.O.Ms.No.59, Revenue (Assignment- II) Department, dated 30.12.2014 and a deed of conveyance was also executed by the Tahsildar, Karimnagar, in favour of petitioner’s vendor, vide document No.8978/2016; while so, respondent No.5 filed a suit vide O.S.No.138/2018 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the petitioner and his vendor in respect of the subject property and the same is pending adjudication.

3.1. It is further averred that by suppressing the pendency of the said suit, respondent No.5 submitted a petition before respondent No.2 during Praja Vani Programme on 16.12.2019, for cancellation of conveyance deed bearing document No.8978 of 2016, alleging that the said Conveyance deed executed in favour of petitioner’s vendor was objectionable and the same was obtained basing on wrong documents; that the petitioner entered appearance and filed counter to the petition filed by respondent No.5, however, respondent No.2, without considering the fact that a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the subject property is pending adjudication and also the fact that respondent No.5 is not in possession of the subject property, issued the impugned proceedings, dated 09.06.2020, cancelling the regularization proceedings No.B1/5320/2015, dated 31.10.2015, issued by respondent No.3 and also the conveyance deed executed in favour of the petitioner’s vendor. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged original allotment made in favour of one M.S.Khan clearly stipulated the condition that Plot allotted thereunder is neither alienable nor transferable and as such, respondent No.5 could not claim right over the subject property as subsequent purchaser. He further submitted that the impugned Order passed by respondent No.2 is in violation of Rule-26(i)(k)(i) of Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, which clearly prohibits unilateral cancellation of conveyance deed, unless the cancellation deed is executed under the Orders of competent Court or under Rule 243 thereof. He further submitted that Rule 243 of Telangana Rules under the Registration Act empowers authorities to cancel registered documents, such as sale deeds, that were executed by unauthorized persons regarding government land and the properties listed under Section 22-A of the Stamps and Registration Act.

4.1. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that respondent No.2 failed to consider the building permission granted in favour of the petitioner and also the conveyance deed executed by the Tahsildar in f