APHC010464592024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 23902/2024 Between: 1. MADIREDDY NAGAMMA, W/O LATE BALA NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O D.NO.31-30-25/2, NARAYANA STREET, DABAGARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. PIN CODE - 530 004. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE SUBREGISTRAR, MOGALTHURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. PIN CODE - 534281. 4. THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, MAIN ROAD, SUPER BAZAR COMPLEX, VISAKHAPATNAM R.O. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. PIN CODE - 530001. 5. SRI KATA VENKATA REDDY, S/O LATE PERA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RETD. PROFESSOR, R/O. NO. 5, GODAVARI BLOCK, NEW IAS OFFICERS QUARTERS, KUNDANBAGH, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD - 500 016. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, i. Declaring the action of the Respondents herein, more particularly the action of the Respondent No.3 herein in registering the unilateral execution of Cancellation Deed dated 07.08.2024 bearing C.S.No.5279 of 2024, Document No.4850 of 2024, which is executed by the Respondent No.5 herein, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, violative of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, violative of Rule 26(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules Under the Registration Act, 1908 and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. ii Consequently cancel the registration of Cancellation Deed dated 07.08.2024 bearing C.S.No.5279 of 2024, Document No. 4850 of 2024, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to suspend the registration of Cancellation Deed dated 07.08.2024 bearing C.S.No.5279 of 2024, Document No. 4850 of 2024 pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to grant Leave to file Reply Affidavit in W.P.No.23902 of 2024, accept the Reply Affidavit and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D KASIM SAHEB 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in registering the unilateral execution of cancellation deed dated 07.08.2024 bearing C.S.No.5279 of 2024, document No.4850 of 2024 which is executed by the 5th respondent. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said action of the 3rd respondent is contrary to the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P. Nos.20683 of 2012 and W.P. No.2192 of 2013 dated 07.04.2016. He further contends that the bilateral transactions cannot be sought to be cancelled unilaterally before the 3rd respondent. The observation of the Hon’ble Division Bench at para Nos.29 & 30 of the said judgment is as under: “29. Thus, having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and provisions of the Act, in our opinion, whenever registered documents such as Development Agreement-cum-GPA, is sought to be cancelled, execution and registration of such a document/deed must be at the instance of both the parties i.e., bilaterally and not unilaterally. If a deed of cancellation is allowed to be registered without the knowledge and consent of other party to the deed/document, sought to be cancelled, such registration would cause violation to the principles of natural justice and lead to unnecessary litigation, 4 emanating there from. In any case, as stated earlier, in the absence of any provision specifically empowering the Registrar to entertain a document of cancellation for registration without the signatures of both the parties to the document, the deed cannot be entertained. Moreover, if the Registrars are allowed to entertain a deed of cancellation for registration without signatures of both the parties to the document sought to be cancelled, such power would tantamount to conferring the power to decide disputed questions between the parties. No party to the document would ever approach for cancellation of registered document unilaterally unless there is a dispute with the other party in respect of the subject matter of the document. 30. In the result, we answer the question in the negative. In other words, we hold that registration and unilateral cancellation of documents such as Development Agreement-cum-General of Power of Attorney under the Registration Act is not permissible in law.” 4. There is no dispute with regard to the execution of three agreements of sale-cum-GPAs and out of them two such documents in the year 2008 and one in the year 2006 were executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the husband of the petitioner. It appears that, the husband of the petitioner died on 09.01.2020. When there are disputes arise between the 5th respondent and husband of the petitioner, the 5th respondent tried to cancel the above said agreements of sale-cum- GPAs by presenting cancellation deed before the 4th respondent on 07.04.2014 and 09.04.2014 respectively which were not entertained by the said respondent by way of endorsement dated 09.04.2014 which was assailed earlier in W.P. No.13111 of 2014 and the same was 5 dismissed vide order dated 07.08.2018 filed by the unofficial respondents herein. To get over the said situation, it appears that the 5th respondent again approached the 3rd respondent seeking cancellation of the above said agreements of sale-cum-GPAs by submitting unilateral execution of the cancellation deed dated 07.08.2024 bearing C.S.No.5279 of 2024 document No.4850 of 2024 which was entertained and accepted by action of the 3rd respondent cancelling the above said three agreements of sale-cum-GPAs executed in favour of the petitioner’s husband. In view of the above said cancellation deed dated 07.08.2024 at the instance of the 5th respondent herein, the same is assailed in these three writ petitions in respect of those three cancellation deeds. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submits that the 3rd respondent cannot entertain unilateral cancellation deed when it is sought to be made for the cancellation of agreements of sale-cum-GPAs. 6. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that, the petitioner’s husband died on 09.01.2020 and it is true that the 5th respondent executed three GPAs-cum-agreements of sale for an extent of 2180 Sq. Yds. and the remaining extent of 359 Sq. Yds. is in absolute possession of the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent executed a sale deed for the said 359 Sq. Yds. vide document dated 06.05.2024 in 6 favour of the 3rd parties. Though the 5th respondent executed three GPAs-cum-agreements of sale in the year 2008 as detailed above, the said GPA did not execute any sale deeds in favour of anyone except a time barred sale agreements dated 11.02.2011. He further submits that the petitioner cannot question the action of the 3rd respondent as the above said cancellation deeds were duly executed by the 5th respondent before the said authority. 7. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, upon consideration of the rival submissions made and in view of the above said legal position, when the documents were executed bilaterally the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally, as it is a settled legal position of law that the impugned action of the 3rd respondent is found to be a unilateral action, the same cannot be sustained. Since the impugned action of the 3rd respondent is directly hit by the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court as stated supra, the impugned action of the 3rd respondent in registering the unilateral execution of the cancellation deed dated 07.08.2024 bearing C.S.No.5279 of 2024, document No.4850 of 2024 executed by the 5th respondent is set aside herewith treating it as non-est by reviving the agreements of sale-cum-GPAs covered under the above said cancellation deeds giving liberty to the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law. 7 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 24.02.2026 NNN