- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31839 WP No. 7208 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 7208 OF 2021 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. MR. J.K. BANSAL S/O LATE SRI. BHAGWAN SWARUP AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/A NO.205, C-BLOCK SOMERSET APARTMENT NO.18 M.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 2. MRS. IRA GUPTA D/O MR. J.K. BANSAL W/O MR. SAMER GUPTA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A NO.83, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 11TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 086 3. MRS. RITU BAGRI D/O MR. J.K. BANSAL W/O MR. ARJUN BAGRI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RA/ NO.466/467, 1ST MAIN ROAD 7TH CROSS ROAD RMV EXTENSION BENGALURU-560 080 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARCHISHMAN CHAUDHURY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31839 WP No. 7208 of 2021 T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED CANCELLATION DEED DATED 20.10.2016 BY THE R-2 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.BDA-1-02238-2016-17 AND STORED IN C.D.NO.BDAD221 IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB- REGISTRAR, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the deed of cancellation dated 20.10.2016 executed by the respondent No.2 and registered as document No.BDA-1-02238-2016-17 and stored in C.D.No.BDAD221 in the office of the Sub-registrar of Bangalore Development Authority (henceforth referred to as 'BDA') and to issue a writ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31839 WP No. 7208 of 2021 in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive or precipitative action pursuant to the deed of cancellation dated 20.10.2016. 2. (i) The petitioners claim that the respondent No.2 had executed a deed of absolute sale dated 08.12.1993, conveying a site bearing No.281/B situated in Block No.4, Koramangala Extension, Bangalore, in favour of Smt.Pushpa Bansal. Thereafter, Smt.Pushpa Bansal obtained a plan duly sanctioned from the erstwhile Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. She constructed a shed in the aforesaid property. It is claimed that Smt.Pushpa Bansal was paying the property tax since the year 1991 and that she was in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the said property. (ii) Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to Smt.Pushpa Bansal on 21.04.2011 by the Assistant Revenue Officer (henceforth referred to as 'ARO') to show cause as to why the Khatha standing in her name should not be cancelled and made over to the name of Smt.T.P.Leelavathi on the ground that she was also an allottee of the property from the respondent No.2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31839 WP No. 7208 of 2021 (iii) The petitioners contend that Smt.Pushpa Bansal was abroad and therefore requested her son-in-law to appear before the ARO. Her son-in-law appeared before the ARO and sought time to file objections. However, the ARO refused to grant time. The son-in-law of Smt.Pushpa Bansal later furnished all the photocopies of all the documents of title of Smt.Pushpa Bansal. However, ignoring the said documents, the ARO proceeded to pass an order canceling the khatha of the property that stood in the name of Smt.Pushpa Bansal and accepted the request of Smt.T.P.Leelavathi to enter her name in the khatha. (iv) Questioning the above, Smt.Pushpa Bansal filed W.P.No.19791/2011, which was allowed by this Court in terms of an order dated 30.05.2013 and directed restoration of the khatha of the property in the name of Smt.Pushpa Bansal. The petitioners claim that Smt.Pushpa Bansal was startled when she came to know from the caretaker of the aforesaid site that some third persons had come to the property and made enquiries regarding the ownership of the property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31839 WP No. 7208 of 2021 (v) The petitioners contend that Smt.Pushpa Bansal then filed O.S.No.3888/2011 against Smt.T.P.Leelavathi for perpetual injunction. The trial Court after considering the objections filed by Smt.T.P.Leelavathi, allowed the application for temporary injunction and injuncted Smt.T.P.Leelavathi and her family members from trespassing or interfering with the possession of Smt.Pushpa Bansal. (vi) The petitioners claim that in the meanwhile certain criminal proceedings were initiated by Smt.T.P.Leelavathi and the Seshadripuram Police Station filed a charge-sheet against Smt.Pushpa Bansal and others in C.C.No.14949/2014 (CR.No.207/2013), which was challenged before this Court in Crl.P.No.2380/2016 and this Court quashed the proceedings vide order dated 26.08.2020. The petitioners claim that during the pendecy of certain proceedings filed against orders passed in O.S.No.3888/2011, certain documents were produced before the trial Court, one amongst them was a deed of cancellation executed by respondent No.2, unilaterally canceling the sale deed dated 08.12.1993, executed in favour of Smt.Pushpa Bansal. The petitioners being the legal heirs of Smt.Pushpa Bansal have approached this Court challenging the cancellation - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31839 WP No. 7208 of 2021 deed on the ground that the same was executed unilaterally and hence was unenforceable in the eyes of law and that respondent No.2 has no authority to execute such a deed of cancellation. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that in order to confer better title on the allottee Smt.T.P.Leelavathi, the sale deed in favour of Smt.Pushpa Bansal had to be cancelled and therefore steps were taken to cancel the sale deed. He thus submits that the action taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 4. The respondent No.2 representing the respondent No.1 having once executed a sale deed in favour of Smt.Pushpa Bansal lost all right, title and interest in respect of the property conveyed and therefore, he had no authority to cancel the sale deed that too unilaterally and without hearing the petitioners or their predecessor in title. Once a transaction is concluded, a party to the transaction cannot resile from the transaction and unilaterally cancel the document. The authority to cancel such documents is vested only in the Civil Courts that too at the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31839 WP No. 7208 of 2021 instance of a party who has a grievance regarding that document. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in K.Raju vs. Bangalore Development Authority - ILR 2011 KAR 120, where it was held as follows: "41. It is not in dispute that the BDA was the owner of the properties in question. It has executed sale deeds in respect of the said properties in favour of the allottees. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act defines 'sale' as under: "Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised." 42. When the owner of the property sells/conveys the property to a purchaser under a written document and gets the same registered, the right, title and interest in the said property is transferred from the owner to the purchaser on registration of the said document. Thus, once such sale takes places, transfer is complete, the vendor of the property ceases to be the owner of the property. The effect of registration of an instrument not only affects the rights of the parties to the instrument but also affects parties, who may claim under them. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act provides for cancellation of the written instruments, which is as under: "31. When cancellation may be ordered: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31839 WP No. 7208 of 2021 (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the Court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the Court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation." 43. It is clear from the above provision that both void and voidable instruments can be cancelled by the Court. This Court in BINNY MILL LABOUR WELFARE HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED vs. D.R.MRUTHYUNJAYA ARADHYA was considering a similar case where the vendor of the property had unilaterally cancelled the sale deed. It is held as under: "Unilaterally he cannot execute what is styled as a deed of cancellation, because on the date of execution and registration of the deed of cancellation, the said person has no right or interest in that property. Normally what can be done by a Court can be done by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31839 WP No. 7208 of 2021 parties to an instrument by mutual consent. Even otherwise if the parties to a document agree to cancel it by mutual consent for some reason and restore status quo ante, it is possible to execute such a deed. An agreement of sale, lease or mortgage or partition may be cancelled with the consent of the parties thereto. Because in the case of agreement of sale, lease, mortgage or partition, each of the parties to the said document even after the execution and registration of the said deed retains interest in the property and, therefore, it is permissible for them to execute one more document to annul or cancel the earlier deed. However, it would not apply to a case of deed of sale executed and registered. In the case of a sale deed executed and registered, the owner completely loses his right over the property and the purchaser becomes the absolute owner. It cannot be nullified by executing a deed of cancellation because by execution and registration of a sale deed, the properties are being vested in the purchaser and the title cannot be divested by mere execution of a deed of cancellation. Therefore, even by consent or agreement between the purchaser and the vendor, the said sale deed cannot be annulled. If the purchaser wants to give back the property, it - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31839 WP No. 7208 of 2021 has to be by another deed of conveyance. If the deed is vitiated by fraud or other grounds mentioned in the Contract Act, there is no possibility of parties aggreing by mutual consent to cancel the deed. It is only the Court which can cancel the deed duly executed, under the circumstances mentioned in Section 31 and other provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Therefore, the power to cancel a deed vests with a Court and it cannot be exercised by the vendor of a property." 44. It is thus clear that when the sale deed executed and registered, the owner completely loses his right over the property and the purchaser becomes the absolute owner. It cannot be nullified by executing a deed of cancellation because by execution and registration of a sale deed, the properties are being vested in the purchaser and the title cannot be divested by mere execution of a deed of cancellation. Therefore, even by consent or agreement between the purchaser and the vendor, the said sale deed cannot be annulled. If the purchaser wants to give back the property, it has to be by another deed of conveyance. If the deed is vitiated by fraud or other grounds mentioned in the Contract Act, there is no possibility of parties agreeing by mutual consent to cancel the deed. It is only the Court which can cancel the deed duly executed, under the circumstances mentioned in Section 31 and other provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Therefore, the power to cancel - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31839 WP No. 7208 of 2021 the deed vests with a Court and it cannot be exercised by the vendor of a property. After execution and registration of the sale deed, the BDA cannot determine the validity of the sale deed. It can neither execute a cancellation deed unilaterally. If the BDA is of the view that the sale deed executed by it is contrary to law, it has to approach the Civil Court for its cancellation as provided under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly." 5. In view of the findings recorded by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to which the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were parties, it cannot now lie in the mouth of the respondents that they are justified in unilaterally canceling the sale deed by executing a deed of cancellation. 6. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The petition is allowed; ii. The impugned deed of cancellation dated 20.10.2016 executed by the respondent No.2 and registered as document No.BDA-1-02238-2016-17 and stored in C.D.No.BDAD221, in the office of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31839 WP No. 7208 of 2021 the Sub-registrar, Bangalore Development Authority, is quashed. iii. It is open for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take necessary steps in accordance with law, if they are interested to annul the sale deed executed by them in favour of Smt.Pushpa Bansal. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39