IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI-- TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 150 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order, dt.01.12. in W.P.No. 36483 of 2015 on the file of the High Court.^ Between: Khandavalli Nagalakshmi Kumari, W/o. Lalishmana Rao, Aged about 66 years, Occ; House wife R/o. D.No. 12-10-587/99/A, Flat No.201, Sri Srinivasa Residency, Sreedevi Nursing Home Seetaphalmandi, Secunderabad. ...APPELLANT AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. The Sub- Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The Sub-Registrar, Nandigama, Krishna District. Nandivada Naga Venkata Narsimha Venu Gopal, S/o. N.Rama Krishna, H.No.21-134, 21-159, Revenue Colony, Near Ankamma Temple Nandigama, Krishna District. Nandivada Naga Venkata Narsimha Prabhu Shankar, S/o. N.Rama Krishna, H.No.21-134, 21-159, Revenue Colony, Near Ankamma Temple, Nandigama, Krishna District. Nandivada Naga Venkata Narsimha Prabhu Shankar, S/o. N.Rama Krishna, H.No.21-134, 21-159, Revenue Colony, Near Ankamma ^ Temple, Nandigama, Krishna District. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2024 ^ ,v Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order in WP.No. 36483 of 2015 dated 01.12.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati. ^ Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P. NARAHARI BABU ^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE — Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 : SRI Y.N. SRINIVASAN"” The Court made the following: JUDGMENT f APHC010069852024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] I TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 150/2024 Between: Khandavalli Nagalakshmi Kumari ...APPELLANT AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.YVSRINIVASAN The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) One Sri N. Gopal Rao, to whom Ac.0.4V2 cents in R.S No.667/8 of Nandigama, Krishna District of house property had, been assigned., is said to have executed a Will Peed dated 27.02.2002 bequeathing the name of his Sri N. Rama Krishna. After the demise of Sri N. Gopal Rao on 03.02.2008, Sri N. Rama Krishna is said to have been executed a Deed of Gift dated 14.05.2005 vide document No.1588 of 2012 in favour of the respondents 6 and 7 herein, appears that O.S No.62 of 2009, had already been filed before Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama by other members of the family and more particularly, the appellant herein. The appellant herein had also approached the Hon'ble Lokayukta with the complaint that the Deed of the Gift dated 14.05.2012, is a sham document executed primarily to negate her rights over her property and the requires to be set-aside. Thereupon, the District Collector, in pursuance of some directions given by the Lokayukta, is said to have directed the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada to cancel the said Deed of Gift; It same 2. Aggrieved by this correspondence between the District Collector and Sub-Collector on 19.08.2013, the respondents 6 and 7 approached this Court by way of W.P No.36483 of 2015, contending that the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada cannot cancel the Deed of Gift. The learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 01.12.2022, had held that revenue authorities, in the given case cannot cancel the registered Deed of Gift and set-aside the impugned proceedings dated 19.08.2013. However, the learned Single Judge left it open to the appellant herein, who is arrayed as 3 respondent No.6 in the writ petition to seek cancellation of the Deed by approaching the connpetent Civil Court. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present appeal. It is the case of the appellant that she was not given any notice of the writ petition and the order has been passed without hearing her. 4. Sri Narahari Babu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the direction to cancel the Deed of Gift is passed on the directions of the Hon'ble Lokayukta and as such, cannot be disputed. 5. The learned Government Pleader, in support of the appellant would draw the attention of this Court to Rule 26 (i) and proviso thereto and A.P Rules Registration made under provisions of the Registration Act 1908. The said Rule reads as follows:- "26.(i) Every document shall, before acceptance for registration, be examined by the Registering Officer to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act and in these rules shall have been complied with, for instance... (k)(i) The registering officer shall ensure at the time of presentation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyances on 4 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; 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 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 properties not registerable by any provisions of law." or a or 6. Heard Sri Y. N. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7, through online. The question of whether the registered document can be cancelled in the absence of original parties, to which, the said document had come up before this Court in the case of Yanamala MaUeswari Vs. Anannthula Sayamma^. The Full Bench in this 7. 1 2006 (6) ALO 623 FB ,«E2SE1_ 5 case had taken the view that such cancellation was permissible. Thereafter, the said issue came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thota Ganga Lakshmi Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh^, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that unilateral cancellation of Deed of Alienation is not permissible. I# f 8. However, the learned Government Pleader would rely upon the proviso to Rule 26A(i), to contend that said proviso permits cancellation of Deeds even in the absence of executant and claimant parties, if the Deeds relate to properties which have been declared to be Government properties or assigned or endowment lands or properties not permissible by any provisions of law. 9. In the present case, the dispute is between the members of the family of the original assignee. In such case, the said proviso would not be applicable in as much as the transactions are between the legal heirs of the original assignee and as such, there is no violation of the A.P Assignment Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. / 2 2012 (1) ALO 90 SC 6 do not find any reason to interfere . The appeal is In such circumstances, we the order of the learned Single Judge. 10. with accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAWIESH BABU deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. One CC to Sri P. Narahari Babu, Advocate [OPUCK 2. Two CCS to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri Y.V. Srinivasan, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:25/02/2025 £P^COF ANOS^ JUDGMENT 5 13 MAR 2025 a 59/ ^ . Current beciion . WA.No.150 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS