Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Declaration, to declare the cancellation of the deed of sale, dated 16.8.2007, executed by the second respondent and registered as Document No.3937 of 2007, on the file of the first respondent, as null and void. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, had entered into an agreement, with the second respondent, during the course of its business, to purchase the property, measuring an extent of about 16 acres and 13 cents, comprised in the various survey numbers, situated in Kollapakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. Pursuant to the said agreement, the second respondent, through his Power of Attorney, had executed a registered sale deed, dated 31.10.2005, registered as Document No.4102 of 2005, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Pammal, conveying an extent of 11 acres and 90 cents, comprised in the various survey numbers. The second respondent had registered another sale deed, dated 10.2.2006, registered as Document No.412 of 2006, on the file of the said Sub-Registrar, Pammal, conveying an extent of 3 acres and 38 cents, comprised in two survey numbers, in Kollapakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. As such, the second respondent had conveyed a total extent of 15 acres and 28 cents, to and in favour of the petitioner company. 4. It has been further stated that, when the sale deeds had been executed, the second respondent had put the petitioner company in absolute possession of the properties in question and had also handed over the documents pertaining to the said properties. From the date of the purchase of the properties, the petitioner company has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the second respondent herein, had executed a `Cancellation of Deed of Sale’, on 16.8.2007, which had been registered, on 28.8.2007, seeking to cancel the sale deed executed on 31.10.2005. The said deed, bearing Document No.3937 of 2007, had been registered on the file of the first respondent. 5. While so, the second respondent herein, had executed a `Cancellation of Deed of Sale’, on 16.8.2007, which had been registered, on 28.8.2007, seeking to cancel the sale deed executed on 31.10.2005. The said deed, bearing Document No.3937 of 2007, had been registered on the file of the first respondent. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the `Cancellation of Deed of Sale’, dated 16.8.2007, registered as Document No.3937 of 2007, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Pammal, executed on 31.10.2005, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. When the sale deed had been signed by the vendor, as well as the purchaser, it cannot be cancelled by executing a cancellation deed by one of the parties to the said document, unilaterally. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Hadeeja Ammal 2011(2) CTC 1 , wherein, it has been held that a deed of cancellation of sale does not create, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in an immovable property and has no effect in the eye of law. Once the title to the property is transferred, by way of a sale, it cannot be divested by the execution of a deed of cancellation, even with the consent of the parties concerned. As such, a deed of cancellation cannot be accepted for registration, as there is no provision in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or in the Registration Act, 1908, for the cancellation or annulment of a sale deed. 7. The learned counsel had also relied on a decision of this Court, reported in G.D. Subramaniam Vs. The Sub Registrar 2009(1) CTC 709 , wherein, it had been held that the registration of a cancellation deed of sale executed, unilaterally, without the knowledge and consent of the other parties to the sale deed, and without complying with Section 32-A of the Registration Act, 1908, is invalid, as such registration is without jurisdiction and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 8. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner company, instead of developing the land and forming a layout, as promised, had illegally transferred an extent of 11 acres and 90 cents to its own name, under a sale deed, dated 31.10.2005, registered on the file of the first respondent, as Document No.4102 of 2005. Thereafter, on 10.2.2006, the second respondent had cancelled the power of attorney granted in favour of the petitioner company, on 10.2.2006, bearing Document No.243 of 2006, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar. Thereafter, the petitioner had illegally transferred the remaining portion of the properties, measuring an extent of 3 acres and 38 cents, belonging to the second respondent, under a sale deed, registered as Document No.412 of 2006, on the file of the first respondent. However, prior to the execution of the sale deeds, the Government of Tamilnadu had notified the acquisition of the lands in question, for the purpose of the extension of the airport and a notice had been issued, by Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Sriperumbudur, asking the second respondent to attend the hearing and to submit his objections, if any, regarding the acquisition, vide letter, dated 18.6.2008. In such circumstances, the cancellation of the unauthorized and bogus sale deeds, executed and registered by the petitioner company, on the file of the first respondent, is legal, valid and binding on the petitioner. Since, the petitioner company had illegally created certain rights over the properties belonging to the second respondent, the cancellation of the sale deeds are binding on the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had relied on the decision, reported in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana 2011 (6) CTC 90, in support of his contention that an immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred or conveyed only by a valid registered deed of conveyance. 10. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had relied on the decision, reported in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana 2011 (6) CTC 90, in support of his contention that an immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred or conveyed only by a valid registered deed of conveyance. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the first respondent does not have the power or authority, either under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, to register a unilateral deed of cancellation of sale, especially, when such a document seeks to cancel a sale deed, executed by the parties concerned and registered on the file of the first respondent. 11. As per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, reported in Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Hadeeja Ammal 2011(2) CTC 1 , relied on by the petitioner, learned counsel for it is clear that a deed of cancellation of sale cannot be registered, unilaterally, by the registering authority, as he has no power or authority to do so. As such, the registration of the deed of cancellation of sale, dated 16.8.2007, registered as Document No.3937 of 2007, on the file of the first respondent, is invalid in the eye of law. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.