APHC010201622026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.10204 of 2026 Between: 1. MANEPALLI BRAHMAYYA,, S/O. ADISESHAYYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS D.NO.9-24, BANK COLONY, OPPOSITE CHAITANYA TECHNO SCHOOL, KOTHAPETA RURAL, VETAPALEM MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.- 522503 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.- 522501 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, NTR DISTRICT, OPPOSITE PRIYA CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, MARUTHI COLONY, PANTA KALUVA ROAD, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA - 520010. 4. THE SUBREGISTRAR, SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, TIRUVURU GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522005 5. SHAIK DARIYA BEE, W/O. SHAIK KHASIM SAHEB AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. 1-198, GUJJANAGUNDIA, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522006 6. SRI SHAIK FAREED, S/O. SHAIL VALI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-3-57/9, GUJJANAGUNDIA GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522006 7. SRI SHAIK ABDULLA, S/O. SHAIK VALI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-3-96, GUJJANAGUNDIA, GUNTUR 2 DISTRICT - 522006 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly respondent No.3 in contemplating to cancel the registered documents pursuant to impugned Notices dated 31.03.2026 in form-4 issued under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 bearing File No. 648/2026-3 as illegal, arbitrary, beyond jurisdiction, contrary to law and in violation of the principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the impugned Notices dated 31.03.2026 in iform-4 issued under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 bearing File No. 648/2026-3 as the same is issued without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KRISTAM SAKTHI NIRANJAN GUPTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a mandamus or any direction and to declare the action of the respondents, more particularly respondent No.3 in contemplating to cancel the registered documents pursuant to the impugned notices dated 31.03.2026 in Form-4 issued under Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908, bearing File No 648/20263, as illegal, arbitrary, beyond jurisdiction, contrary to law and in violation of the principles of natural justice and also violative of Article, 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and, consequently, prayed to set aside the impugned notices dated 31.03.2026 issued in Form-4 issued under Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908, bearing File No.648/2026-3. 2. Heard Sri K.Sakthi Niranjan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. The facts that asserted in the Writ Petition is that the petitioner is the lawful purchaser of immovable property to an extent of 179.62, 170 and 170.6 square yards, vide registered sale deeds documents numbers 2346, 2328,, 2321, 2201, 2194b and 2195 of 2025 dated 4 07.01.2025 from respondent Nos.5 to 7 for a valid sale consideration after verification of title of the respondent Nos.5 to 7. While so, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent-The District Registrar issued three (3) independent show cause notices under Section 77A of the Registration Act, dated 31.03.2026, calling for explanation on or before 15.04.2026, why the sale deeds should not be cancelled on the ground that it contravenes Section 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908, (A.P.Amendment), and the said show cause notices were served on the petitioner on 04.04.2026. 4. The said notices dated 31.03.2026 were impugned in the present writ petition on the grounds that the 3rd respondent-The District Registrar has failed to mention details/bereft of necessary details to respond to the notice, the notice does not identify any specific prior registered document allegedly executed by the same vendor in favour of any other persons and a show cause notice without foundational fact for acting is legally unsustainable hence prayed to set aside the impugned notices dated 31.03.2026. 5. With regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition against show cause notice, the Apex Court held in the landmark judgment delivered in 5 the case of Siemens Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006)12 SCC 33, Writ Petition against a show cause notice is maintainable, where the notice itself is without jurisdiction, or in denial of principles of natural justice, or where it appears that said notice has been issued with premeditation. 6. The wit petitioner has not pleaded any glaring violation of principles of natural justice and it is not stated that the show cause notice is issued with preconceived notion or mind or it is not the contention of the writ petitioner that the 3rd respondent is not having jurisdiction to issue the notice impugned in the Writ Petition. 7. Under Section 77A of the Registration Act, the District Registrar is vested with the power to cancel the document registered when it is found the document is obtained by impersonation, or by fraud or prior existing registrations for the same property. For the effective disposal that Court extracts Section 77A of the Registration Act which reads as under: "77-A. Cancellation of registered documents in certain cases.–– (1) The Registrar, either suo motu or on a complaint received from any person, is of the opinion, that registration of a 6 document is made in contravention of Section 22-A or Section 22-B or Section 22-C, shall issue a notice to the executants and all the parties to the document and parties to subsequent documents, if any, and all other person who, in the opinion of the Registrar, may be affected by the cancellation of the document, to show cause as to why the registration of the document shall not be cancelled. On consideration of reply, if any received thereof, the Registrar may cause the material facts to be put up a committee, headed by the District Collector as defined in the rules thereof, within a specific time frame, to cancel the registration of the document and cause to enter such cancellation in the relevant books and indexes. (2) The power under sub-section (1) may also be exercised by the Inspector General of Registration. 8. And in the impugned show cause notice, it was emphatically sated that alleged sales deeds executed by the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 7 contravenes Section 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908 (A.P.Amendment) and the 3rd respondent-Registrar in pursuant to Section, issued the show cause notice calling for explanation. 9. Hence, the petitioner is permitted to file explanation to the show cause notice dated 31.03.2026 within a period two (2) weeks from date of receipt of the order of this Court and, on filling on such explanation, 7 the 3rd respondent is directed to apply its mind and address the contentions raised by the writ petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and communicate the said decision to the writ petitioner; and the respondents are directed to maintain status quo as on the date i.e., 16.04.2026, till considering the explanation. 10. With this observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 17.04.2026 siva 8 133 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.10204 of 2026 Date: 17.04.2026 siva