IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) > WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARWJ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25311 OF 2021 Between: Gajjala Rama Maddilati Reddy, S/o Chinna Rami Reddy, Aged- 60 years, H.N0.44/16/G.24/A, Sarada Nagar, State Bank Officers Colony, near Netaji Talkies, Kurnool, Kurnool District, A.P., ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Principal Secretary, Department of Stamps and Registration, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4. The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur. 5. The District Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 6. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Registrar's Office (O.B.), Kurnool, Kurnool District. 7. C. Nagamani, W/o Srinivasulu, H.No.49-1-88 BM7, MS Nagar, Kurnool City, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the one respondents particularly the 5th respondent in passing orders vide Procgs.No.l\/IV/2994/2019 dated- document Nos. 2397/2012 and 2398/2012 which the petitioner, on the ground that those documents were registered without having rights and ownership on the schedule which belong to the property of the 7th respondent herein and recommending for prosecution against the parties to the documents, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act and to consequently set aside the the interest of justice. 04-08-2021 thereby cancelling the were executed in favour of same in lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bd pleased to an interim order of pass suspension of the Procgs.No.MV/2994/2019 dated- 04-08-2021 passed by the 5^^ respondent; during the pendency of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AJAY KUMAR KANAPARTHI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION) Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI V. NITESH The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010411882021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] 0[^:S WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25311/2021 Between: ...PETITIONER Gajjala Rama Maddilati Reddy, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AJAY KUMAR KANAPARTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.VNITESH The Court made the following order: The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the property to an extent of Ac.0.26 cents and Ac.0.25 cents totaling to Ac.0.51 cents out of total extent of Ac.0.75 cents covered by survey No. 139/8 of Joharapuram, Kurnool, Kurnool District, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds vide document Nos.2397 and 2398 of 2012 dated 17.04.2012 for valuable consideration and pursuant to the same, his name was mutated in the revenue records and ever since he has been in 2 possession and enjoyment of the subject property. It is his further case that respondent No.7 made a representation to respondent No.5 stating that she purchased plot in an extent of 288.88 sq yards bearing Plot No.437 in survey NOS.136A & B, 137 A & B, 138, 139 and 141 of Kallur village and Mandal near Joharapuram under document No.11990 of 2017 dated 13.12.2017 and requested to cancel the document executed in favour of the petitioner and basing on the said representation, respondent No.5 has issued the impugned proceedings No.MV/2994/2019 dated 04.08.2021 cancelling the registered sale deeds of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Kanaparthi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for official respondents and Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for respondent No.7. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the writ affidavit contended that respondent No.5 has cancelled the petitioner’s sale deeds invoking provision under Rule 26(k)(i) of the Registration Act, 1908, though they do no not fall within the parameters of the said rule. He further contended that perusal of the impugned proceedings, it was stated that notice has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner’s son, but in fact no notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was also given to the petitioner before passing the impugned proceedings. He further submitted that if at all respondent No.7 has any grievance with regard to subject property, he has to approach the competent Civil Court, but not by 3 way of approaching the registering authority. As such, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit of respondent No.6 contended that basing on the representation of respondent No.7, notices were issued to the petitioner, his son and respondent No.7 to attend the enquiry in the matter before respondent No.5 with all relevant documents. In response to the notices issued by respondent No.5, the petitioner and his son have not attended and respondent No.7 only attended for enquiry and gave a representation requesting to examine all the records. As per available records. document No.2398 of 2012 was registered fraudulently without having rights and ownership. He further submitted that, the registering authority has every right to enquire into the matter, if sale deeds are being registered by misrepresentation or fraud and in the present case, the petitioner has misrepresented the facts by playing fraud and got registered the sale deeds. He further submitted that respondent No.5 has rightly issued the impugned proceedings and there is neither illegality nor procedural impropriety in passing the impugned order. The Writ Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for respondent No.7 while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit contended that the subject property belongs to respondent No.7, but the petitioner got registered the sale deeds by playing fraud and misrepresentation,^ln,those circumstances, respondent No.7 made 5. a representation to the endorsement dated 21.07.2020 was informed to approach the civil Court registering authority and respondent No.5 issued rejecting the request of respondent No. to settle the issue 7 and over the property, respondent No.7 has filed appeal before Aggrieved by the said endorsement, respondent No.3 by bringing to the endorsement issued by the Commissioner land in survey No. 139 is No.495/1982. He further submitted notice about all the facts including the wherein it was informed that the in total extent of Ac.9.08 cents fully that the petitioner made covered by LP an application in mee-seva seeking mutation of his of pattadar pass book to the land i cents and the Tahsildar vide endorsement application of the petitioner stating that covered under LP No.495/1982. name in the revenue records and iissuance m survey No. 139 to an extent of Ac.0.51 dated 26.09.2020 has rejected the the land i He further submitted that in survey No. 139 is fully upon perusing the material on record respondent No.3 i to the conclusion that document Nos.2397 issued memo dated 24.06.2021 and came and 2398 of 2012 are liable for respondent No.5 to issue cancellation and pursuant to the orders issued by cancellation and issued direction to orders to the Sub-Registrar, Kurnool respondent No.3, respondent No.5 has i further submitted that Registration Act, 1908 and rules upon, has issued the i Once fraud has been played and mi every right to enquire into the issued the impugned proceedings. He registering authority, by invoking the provisions of power cast sale deeds, misrepresented, the registering authority has same. In fact there are penal provisions under made there under and by virtue of impugned proceedings cancelling the said 5 Registration Act particularly Sections 81 and 82. The Registering authority also launched prosecution and a crime has been registered against the petitioner and charge sheet has also been filed. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned 6. counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the registering authority has registered sale 7. deeds in favour of the petitioner vide document Nos.2397 & 2398 of 2012. A representation was made by respondent No.7 stating that the subject property of the sale deeds belongs to her and the petitioner by misrepresenting and playing fraud on the registering authority got registered the said property in his favour. The same has been entertained and passed the impugned proceedings cancelling the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner’s contention is that respondent No.7 is no way connected to the schedule property and if at all he has any grievance with regard to subject property, he has to approach the competent civil Court, but cannot approach the Registering authority. Sri Nitesh, learned counsel for respondent No.7 by relying on the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 19021 of 2015 contended that the registering authority has authority to cancel the registered sale deed. if the same got registered by playing fraud. 6 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh^ held as follows: In this connection, we may also refer to Rule 26(i)(k) relating to Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the Registration Act, which states "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." 7. A reading of the above 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 deed can be registered and that too after notice to the concerned parties. In this case, neither is there any declaration by a competent court nor was there any notice to the parties. Hence, this Rule also makes it clear that both the cancellation deed as well as registration thereof were wholly void and nonest and meaningless transactions. Perusal of the impugned proceedings would indicate that respondent No.5 by solely relying on the letter of the Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation and the proceedings of the Tahsildar and by examining the photos in the records available, came to the conclusion that respondent No.7 is the owner of the property. Respondent No.5 cannot declare that respondent 9. ^ (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 207 Respondent No.5 stepped into the shows of the civil jurisdiction and decided that respondent No.7 is the owner of the property. The said observation is beyond his jurisdiction and competency. If at all respondent No.7 has any grievance with regard to registration of sale deed or wants to claim any title over the subject property, he has to approach competent civil Court. The impugned proceedings are illegal and contrary to law. The judgment relied by respondent No.7 is not squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The petitioner has made out a case warranting interference of this Court and the judgment held in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh is applicable to the facts of this case. By virtue of the observations made supra, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. No.7 is having title. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order of respondent No.5 vide proceedings No.MV/2994/2019 dated 04.08.2021. It is to mention that respondent No.7 is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if he has claim over the subject property. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar 10. needless Petition, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Stamps and Registration, Secretariat Buildings, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4. The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur. 5. The District Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 6. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Registrar's Office (O.B.), Kurnooi, Kurnool District. 7. One CC to Sri Ajay Kumar Kanaparthi, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri V. Nitesh, Advocate[OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 10. Three CD Copies. r [OUT] ssb HIGH COURT DATED:22/01/2025 X 12 MAR 2025 ^ ^ . Cuitent SMiion %^pgspATCW^g^ ORDER WP.No.25311 of 2021 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS