APHC010043652020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 2522/2020 Between: Nandamuri Anjaneyulu, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri Polisetty Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the respondents in cancelling the registered sale deed bearing document No.3868 of 2017. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he had purchased the subject property in 2017 vide registered sale deed dated 26.07.2017. The 2 vendor of the petitioner has succeeded to the subject property through a registered will executed by one Myneni Swarajya Lakshmi. After the purchase, the petitioner has obtained municipal permission for construction of the building in 2018. After obtaining the permission, it is contended that the petitioner has constructed a building in accordance with the approved plan. It is stated that over and above the approved plan, the petitioner has built a room under the water tank on the 3rd floor and applied for building regularization. Later on, the Municipal Authorities have issued a show cause notice for demolition of the building alleging that the building was constructed over Government land. Challenging the said action, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.16860 of 2019. In the writ petition, interim orders were granted directing the respondents therein not to demolish the building. 4. Subsequently, a newspaper report was published stating that the registered sale deed of the petitioner was cancelled. Challenging the said proceedings, the instant writ petition is filed. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the 2nd respondent had issued proceedings dated 08.01.2020, stating that the subject registered sale deed under which the land was purchased by the petitioner is a forged one, thereby authorized the 3rd respondent to execute cancellation deed. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent presented the document for cancelling the registered sale deed before the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has accordingly admitted the document to registration and registered the same. He contends that the cancellation cannot be said to be unilateral cancellation since the cancellation deed was 3 registered as per the provisions of Rule 26 (k) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act,1908. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Jorigala Bangaram and Another Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others in W.P.No.37325 of 2014 & batch, wherein it is observed as follows: “10. The District Collector, on the basis of the report given by the Tahsildar, has unilaterally directed cancellation of deeds of sale obtained by the petitioners, without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioners to set out their claim over the land. The said cancellation is said to have been done on the strength of Rule 26 (k) (i) of the Registration Rules. The said Rule reads as follows: Rules-26 (k)(i) "The registering officer shall ensure at the time of presentation 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 mutual 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. [Inserted by Notification No. R.R. 1/2006, Published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette R.S. to Part II, Extraordinary No.18, Dated 29.11.2006] 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” 4 11. This Rule empowers a Civil Judge, or a Government Official, entitled to execute, Government Orders declaring properties contained in previously registered conveyance of sale to be Government or assigned or endowments land or properties to be Government lands or assigned lands or endowment lands or properties which are not registerable. This provision requires the government to issue an order declaring that the lands in question fall within any of the categories mentioned above. Thereafter, an officer, who is competent to execute such orders, would have to execute the cancellation deed and register the same. In the present case, the respondents have not placed, before this court, any Government Order, which contains such a declaration. There is no mention of any such Government Order, in the counter affidavit, filed by the Tahsildar-7th respondent. In the absence of such a Government Order, the provision of Rule 26 (k) (i) would not be applicable. 12. A reading of the said Rule does not disclose any requirement to conduct any enquiry in relation to the character of the property. The provision simply states that it would be sufficient to exercise such power, if there is a declaration, by way of a government order. 13. In the absence of an express provision requiring a notice and opportunity being given to the affected party, can such a requirement be super imposed?” 6. Further, referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SBI Vs. Rajesh Agarwal reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 342, this Court in the case of Jorigala Bangaram and Another Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, wherein it is observed that, “14. The unilateral execution of the cancellation deeds, would terminate any rights, the affected parties may have had over the 5 said property. The deprivation of property, without an opportunity being given to the affected parties to make out their case, would be an arbitrary exercise of power as well as a violation of principles of natural justice. Though there is no provision for an opportunity of hearing being given to the affected parties, such a condition would have to be read into the Rule.” 7. Considered the rival submissions. The grounds that called for cancellation of the registration as culled out from the proceedings of the Collector are: 8. As per the report of the Tahsildar, an extent of Ac.0.83 cents in R.S.No.255-4 was classified in village accounts as Govternment Poramboke and recorded as “Burial Ground”. Subsequently, R.S.No.255-4 was subdivided from 255-4 to 255-24 (Town Site) and house site pattas were issued to certain individuals leaving certain extents of Ac.0.05 cents in R.S.No.255-10, Ac.0.06 cents in R.S.No.255-17 and Ac.0.14 cents in R.S.No.255-24 for pathway. The extents covered under the said R.S.No.255-10, R.S.No.255-17, R.S.No.255-24, were thus enlisted in the list of prohibited properties. 9. It is further noted from the report of the Tahsildar referred to in the proceedings of the collector that Smt. Akella Suryakantham, wife of a deceased freedom fighter was granted house site patta in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents, from the remaining extent of Ac.0.14 cents covered by R.S.No.255-24. Therefore, the extent of Ac.0.02 cents assigned to Smt. Akella Suryakantham was sub divided as R.S.No.255-25. In the year 6 2009, one Smt. Bale Lutheramma, was also granted house site patta in an extent of Ac.0.01 ½ cents out of remaining extent of Ac.0.12 cents, covered by R.S.No.255-24 the same was subdivided as RS.No.255-26. The remaining extent of Ac.0.10 cents in R.S.No.255-24 was left vacant for pathway. It is stated that there is no further sub division as R.S.No.255-29. It stated that Sri Myneni Subbarao and others have sold an extent of Ac.0.04 cents to Nandamuri Anjaneyulu, in R.S.No.255-29 of Gunupudi Village by creating bogus Will and the purchaser has constructed a Building with G+2 floors on the said land. As per Revenue Records, no house site patta was granted by the Tahsildar, Bhimavaram, either to Myneni Jaganmohna Rao, Myneni Subbalakshmi or Nandamuri Anjaneyulu. Therefore, a request was made to the Municipal Commissioner to take necessary action against the illegal construction made in the land belonging to the Government. The Municipal Commissioner has obtained reports from the Tahsildar and issued notice to the petitioner revoking the permission for construction granted in favour of the petitioner. The Tahsildar has accordingly requested the Collector to issue necessary instructions to the Sub-Registrar for cancellation of the document. 10. Basing on the said report of the Tahsildar to issue necessary directions to cancel the sale deed, the collector has issued the proceedings leading to passing of the impugned proceedings. There is no other enquiry by the collector and no opportunity to the petitioner was given. The principle laid 7 down in the case referred supra would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 11. Accordingly, relying on the decision in the case of Jorigala Bangaram and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.37325 of 2014 & batch, the registered cancellation deed bearing No.205/2020 executed by the 3rd respondent and registered by the 4th respondent is set aside. However, this order will not preclude the authorities, if advised, from conducting an exercise in this regard, after following the due procedure and giving due opportunity to the petitioner. 12. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:11.02.2025 ANI 8 458 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.2522 of 2020 Date:11.02.2025 ANI