ORDER : K.Sarath, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are questioning the action of the respondent/ Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District in entertaining and registering the Cancellation Deeds dated 23.09.2017, pursuant to the letter No.E1/4294/2017 dated 22.09.2017 addressed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad, who has addressed letter to the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad in Lr.No.1604/2017 dated 23.09.2017 to cancel Seventeen (17) sale deeds including the sale deed of the petitioner in WP No.36478 of 2017 and sale deeds of the vendors of the petitioners in WP Nos.16657 of 2020 and 1280 of 2024 in respect of lands covered in Sy.Nos.38, 54, 55 and 56 situated at Bahadurguda village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’), without issuing any notice to the petitioners or their respective vendors and requested to revive the cancelled documents. 2 . Since the lis involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 3 . Heard Sri P.Sashidhar Reddy, Sri S.Srinivasa Chary, and K.Sridhara Chary, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mrs. Tekuru Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Mrs.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents. i) FACTS OF THE CASE IN WP No.36478 of 2017 4. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7.21 guntas in Sy.No.38 and another extent of Ac.18.34 Guntas in Sy.No.55, total admeasuring an extent of Ac.26.15 Guntas situated at Bahadurguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal, through registered sale deed dated 20.12.2007, registered as No.133/2008 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad from one Mr.Khader Ali Khan and others, represented by the AGPA Holders, for a valuable sale consideration and since then he has been in possession of the said land. After purchase of the said land, the petitioner made an application for mutation and for issuance of Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds. Pursuant thereto, the then Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal issued a Memo No.434/2004, dated 11.04.2008 to the effect that the application filed by the petitioner for grant of mutation in respect of the lands purchased by him cannot be considered. 5. Pursuant thereto, the then Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal issued a Memo No.434/2004, dated 11.04.2008 to the effect that the application filed by the petitioner for grant of mutation in respect of the lands purchased by him cannot be considered. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the action of the Tahsildar, Shamshabad in refusing for mutation, the petitioner along with others have filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, in Case No.C/1795/2008 under Section 5 (5) of A.P. Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the said appeal was dismissed on 27.05.2008 on the ground of limitation. Challenging the same, the petitioner and others have filed a revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in File No.D/3901/2008 and the said revision was disposed of on 16.08.2008 remanding the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella with a direction to conduct de novo enquiry and pass appropriate orders. 6. It is further case of the petitioner that upon remand of the said matter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, taken up the enquiry and passed orders on 22.12.2008 in File No.C/4159/2008 with a direction to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad for updating the current pahanies of Bahadurguda Village based on the entries of Sethwar, 1954 and Khasara Pahani 1954-55 and its subsequent purchases and also directed to take into consideration of the request for rectifying the survey number-wise by recording the name of Smt.Lateefunnisa Begum, original Pattadar on record and for the balance area of land without disturbing the present pattadars as well as the Government land. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar, passed orders in File No.B/434/2008/1, dated 17.02.2009 to incorporate the names of the purchasers of the lands as pattadars under Section 5 (3) of the ROR Act against Sy.Nos.38 and 55 of Bahadurguda village over an extent of Ac.26.15 guntas in terms of the registered sale deed dated 20.12.2007, registered as document No. 133 of 2008. 7 . The main grievance of the petitioner is that while the things stood thus, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy issued letter No.E1/4294/2017, dated 22.09.2017 directing the Tahsildar to take necessary steps for cancellation of Seventeen (17) sale deeds including the petitioner’s registered sale deed dated 20.12.2007, registered as No.133/2008 and the Tahsildar has executed Cancellation Deed No. CS-5924/2017–Document No.4987 of 2017, cancelling the registered sale deed of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. (ii) FACTS OF THE CASE IN WP No. 16657 of 2020 8. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner- company is the owner and possessor of land in admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6.00 guntas in Sy.No.54 situated at Bahadurguda Village, Shamshabad, having purchased the same from its owner namely, S.Srikanth Reddy, vide document No.139/2010 dated 22.01.2010, for a valuable sale consideration and since then the petitioner-company has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Vendor of the petitioner-company purchased the subject land, along with other lands in Sy.Nos.52, 53, 54 and 59, with A,B, C and D schedule lands, total admeasuring to an extent of Ac.45.37 Guntas vide document dated 20.12.2007, registered as document No.140 of 2008, from Mr.Khader Ali Khan and others. Out of which, the petitioner-company purchased an extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas out of Ac15.03 guntas in Sy.No.54, situated at Bahadurguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal. 9 . After purchase of the lands by the vendor of the petitioner-company, made an application to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad for mutation and also for issuance of Pattadar pass book and title deeds. In response thereto, the Tahsildar, issued Memo No.434 of 2004, dated 11.04.2008 to the effect that the application filed by them for grant of mutation of the above said lands cannot be considered. Aggrieved by the said Memo, the vendor of the petitioner-company along with others filed Appeal No.C/4159/2008 and the same was dismissed on 27.05.2008. Against the same, Revision was filed in File No.D/3901/2008 under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 and the said revision was disposed of and remanded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, with a direction to conduct de novo enquiry in respect the lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.45.37 guntas covered by Sy.Nos.52, 53, 54 and 59. 10. It is further case of the petitioner that, while it being so, the Tahsildar, addressed a letter No.B/1604/2017 dated 23.09.2017 to the Sub- Registrar, Shamshabad, to cancel the (17) sale deeds dated 20.12.2007 including the registered document No.140 of 2008 pertaining to the Vendor of the petitioner and the same was cancelled by Cancellation of Sale Deed No.4978/2017, dated 23.09.2017, without any notice to the petitioner or his vendor, S.Srikanth Reddy. (iii) FACTS OF THE CASE IN WP No.1280 of 2024 11. (iii) FACTS OF THE CASE IN WP No.1280 of 2024 11. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6.00 guntas in Sy.No.56, situated at Bahadurguda Village, Shamshabad, having purchased from its Owner S.Ramachandra Reddy through sale deed No.1277 of 2009 dated 30.04.2009 for a valuable sale consideration. The said Ramachandra Reddy purchased the said land along with other lands, total an extent of Ac.26.16 Guntas in Sy.No.56 vide registered document dated 20.12.2007, registered as document No. 143 of 2008, from Mr.Khader Ali Khan and others, out of which the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. 12. It is further stated by the petitioner that while things stood thus, the Tahsildar, addressed a letter No.B/1604/2017 dated 23.09.2017 to the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, directing him to take steps for cancellation of (17) sale deeds, including the sale deed of the Vendor of the petitioner in Document No.143 of 2008 and accordingly the sale deed of the Vendor of the petitioner was cancelled vide Cancellation of Sale Deed No.CC No.5916/17 - Doc.No.4980/2017 dated 23.09.2017, without any notice to the petitioner or his Vendor. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No.36478 of 2017 would submit that the District Collector, Ranga Reddy ought not to have issued directions to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad and the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad to cancel the sale deeds of the petitioners and their vendors in the absence of any Government Orders. The Tahsildar ought not to have presented the subject registered cancellation deeds cancelling the sale deeds though he is not empowered to present the same by the Government of Telangana by misconstruing the Rule 26 (i) (k) of Telangana Rules under the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 and also wrongly quoting Rule-243 of Telangana Rules under the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908. 14 . The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no declaration by a competent Civil Court nor the High Court and the Government Orders contrary to the Rule 26 (i) (k) of Telangana Rules under the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 to unilaterally execute and register the cancellation Deeds without any notice to the petitioners or their vendors. 15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no declaration by a competent Civil Court nor the High Court and the Government Orders contrary to the Rule 26 (i) (k) of Telangana Rules under the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 to unilaterally execute and register the cancellation Deeds without any notice to the petitioners or their vendors. 15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Sub-Registrar ought to have seen that there are neither executants nor any decrees or order of the competent Civil Court or this Court or any Government orders were presented before him to entertain and register the unilateral cancellation without any notices to the petitioners or their vendors. 16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the acts of the District Collector, Tahsildar and the Sub-Registrar in unilaterally cancelling the registered sale deeds of the petitioners is arbitrary and without any power or authority to do so. If they are under the impression that the registered sale deeds of the petitioners and their vendors are not valid, they can approach the competent Civil Court to redress their grievance, but not by misinterpreting and violating the Rules 26 (i) (k) and 243 of Telangana Rules under the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 for cancellation of the same and requested to set aside the cancellation deeds and revive the cancelled deeds. 17. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that O.S.No.4788 of 2006 was filed by one Mir Khader Ali Khan along with others on the file of VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to declare them as legal heirs of Smt.Lateefunnisa Begum and the same was decreed declaring them as legal heirs, thereby the decree holders are entitled to claim all the patta lands which were earlier recorded in the name of Smt.Lateefunnisa Begum and accordingly they executed a registered GPA bearing document No.6325/2007 dated 23.08.2007 and the vendors of the petitioner executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 20.12.2007, registered as document No.133/2008. 18. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that since the date of purchase through the document No.133 of 2008 the petitioner has been possession and enjoyment of the same to the knowledge of the one and all including the respondents. 18. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that since the date of purchase through the document No.133 of 2008 the petitioner has been possession and enjoyment of the same to the knowledge of the one and all including the respondents. If the respondents are under misconceived impression that the registered sale deed of the petitioner is not valid, they can explore their legal remedies but not indulging in unilateral cancellation of the validly executed registered sale deeds by violating Rule 26 (i) (k) of Telangana Rules under the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned cancellation deed. 19. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No.16657 of 2020 would submit that the cancellation deeds were executed by all the executants and claimant parties of the previously registered conveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil Court or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale. 20. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that all the 17 sale deeds have been cancelled in the year 2017, while there has been some deeds registered for about Ac.148-00 acres in the name of M/s.Dream India and others vide Sale Deed Nos.1568 of 2017, 7370 of 2017 and 7369 of 2017 which were not cancelled proves that there has been selective cancellation of the sale deeds of the petitioners. Further, in ROR Proceedings of various sale deeds of M/s Dream India and others, same survey numbers have been issued in March, 2017, whereas the cancellation of sale deeds of the vendors of the petitioner have been done on 23.09.2017 which shows arbitrary action of the respondents and requested to restore the sale deed of the vendor of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned cancellation deed. 21. 21. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No.1280 of 2024 would submit that the action of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy and the Tahsildar, Shamshabad in issuing impugned letters and the consequential action of the Sub-Registrar in entertaining the same and thereby unilaterally cancelling the previously executed registered sale deeds without any notice and without following due process of law is not only against the principles of natural justice but also violation of Rule 26 (i) (k) of Telangana Rules under the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 and requested to set aside the cancellation deed of the Vendor of the petitioner and revive the same. 22. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of their respective contentions, placed reliance on the following Judgments: 1. State of Uttaranchal and Another vs., Sunil Kumar Vaish and others , (2011) 8 SCC 670 2. Thota Ganga Laxmi and another Vs., Government of Andhra Pradesh , (2010) 15 SCC 207 3. Y.Ramalakshmi Vs. State of Telangana , 2023 SCC Online TS 2727 4. Gaddam Laxmaiah and others Vs., Commissioner and Insepctor General, Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad and others , [2016 SCC ONLINE Hyd 815] 5 Nagubandi Surendra Babu vs The Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad and another , Judgment in WA No.1484 of 2017 Dated 03.03.2022 of TS High Court CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR REVENUE: 23. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue based on the counter would submit that as per the entries in the Revenue Records i.e. Pahanies of Bahadurguda Village, there are 76 survey numbers in the said village comprising an area of Ac.1212.26 guntas. The Bahadurguda village was left un-surveyed prior to abolition of Jagirs in Telangana Area i.e. before Jagir Abolition Regulations 1358 Fasli (1948). Consequent on implementation of the said Act, pahanies were prepared and on verification of entries recorded in Khasra (1954-55) and Seesala (1955-58), it was revealed that all the lands situated at Bahadurguda Village were recorded as patta lands, except the lands specifically situated in Survey Nos.28 and 62 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.150.00 guntas and Ac.500.00 guntas respectively. Consequent on implementation of the said Act, pahanies were prepared and on verification of entries recorded in Khasra (1954-55) and Seesala (1955-58), it was revealed that all the lands situated at Bahadurguda Village were recorded as patta lands, except the lands specifically situated in Survey Nos.28 and 62 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.150.00 guntas and Ac.500.00 guntas respectively. (In the counter the respondents have specifically mentioned in some paras that the subject lands are situated in Sy.Nos.25 and 26 and in some paras it is mentioned as 28 and 62, but during the course of arguments by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue mentioned that the subject lands are situated within Sy.Nos.28 and 62.) 24 . The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would further submit that consequent on abolition of the Jagir Act, a resurvey was conducted in Bahadurguda village by dividing the entire extent of land situated in the village into 101 Survey numbers comprising of an extent of Ac.1321.19 guntas while showing that the land situated in Sy.Nos.28 and 62 as Government lands and all the remaining parcels/survey numbers were clearly classified as patta lands in the name of one Smt.Lateefunissa Begum. Despite conducting resurvey and preparing village map, no Wasool Baqui Register was prepared and the entries were not updated in the subsequent pahanies and the old entries were carried out as intact without subsequent amendments. 25. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would further submit that in the year, 2004 an enjoyment survey was conducted over the subject lands and entire extent of lands situated in Bahadurguda village including the parcel in Sy.Nos.28 and 62. During which it was noticed that various people were found to be in possession of the Government land situated in Sy.No.28 and 62. Subsequently proposals were submitted to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy for regularization of said lands in favour of the encroachers, who were in possession of the same for many years. Accordingly, the District Collector referred the matter to CCLA vide later No.E1/7158/2003 seeking for relaxation and exemption/exclusion of the said survey numbers to affect from conditions laid in G.O.Ms.No.1409, Revenue Department, through which the assignments were barred. Accordingly, the District Collector referred the matter to CCLA vide later No.E1/7158/2003 seeking for relaxation and exemption/exclusion of the said survey numbers to affect from conditions laid in G.O.Ms.No.1409, Revenue Department, through which the assignments were barred. In response thereto, the Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, vide reference No.B1/1022/2006/ dated 29.06.2006 has informed the District Collector, Ranga Reddy not to assign any lands in Sy.Nos.28 and 62 of Bahadurguda Village though the villagers are in possession as the same is abutting the Urban limits of Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the denial of assignment of the subject lands, the individuals have started filing various suits/cases before various forums seeking the reliefs. 26 . The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that, one Mr.Khader Ali Khan along with others have filed a Civil Suit on the file of VIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad to declare them as legal heirs of Smt.Lateefunissa Begum W/o.Late Shams-sul-Dowla-II and the same was decreed declaring them as legal heirs of Smt.Lateefunnisa Begum. As such the individuals who got the decree are very much entitled to claim all the patta lands recorded in the name of Smt.Lateefunnisa Begum, but do not possess to claim the subject lands which are purely Government lands. 27 . The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would further submit that, in the meantime the G.P.A holders of Sri Mir Khader Ali Khan S/o. Late Nawab Gulam Murtuza Khan and others have filed applications before the Tahsildar, Shamsahabd Mandal, seeking mutation orders in their favour in respect of lands situated in Sy.Nos.1 to 101 of Bahadurguda village to an extent of Ac.502.00 guntas claiming that they have purchased under the registered documents dated 20.12.2007, registered as document Nos.133 to 149 of 2008. In turn, the Tahsildar, Shamshabad has issued Memo in file No.B/434/2004 dated 11.04.2004 and rejected their claim. Aggrieved by the said Memo, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella vide Case No.C/1795/2008, dated 27.05.2008. Being aggrieved by the same, a revision was filed before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy vide case No.D1/3901/2008 and the said revision was disposed of on 16.08.2008 and remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct de novo enquiry. Being aggrieved by the same, a revision was filed before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy vide case No.D1/3901/2008 and the said revision was disposed of on 16.08.2008 and remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct de novo enquiry. Consequent on remanding the matter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide case No.C/4149/2008 passed orders on 21.12.2008 directing the Tahsildar, Shamshabad to make necessary corrections while rectifying survey numbers, extents by recording the name of Smt.Lateefunnissa Begum as Pattadar of the balance extent of land without amending the names of present pattadars and the Government. Thus, the individuals never allowed to claim the subject lands as the same purely belongs to the Government. 28 . The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would further submit that in compliance of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal issued 17 mutation orders in file No.434/2008, dated 17.02.2009 to an extent of Ac.502.34 guntas covered by document Nos.133 of 2008 to 149 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad in respect of subject survey numbers and other survey numbers. However, the said mutations were not implemented in the revenue records. As per re-survey records, supplementary Sethwars and new village map prepared in respect of lands situated at Bahadurguda village, the lands in Sy.Nos.28 and 62 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.650.00 guntas were shown as Government lands and an extent of Ac.502.34 guntas was shown as patta lands. The entire Government land is in the possession of local villagers since way back. The supplementary Sethwar was not implemented in the revenue records as on this date. 29. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would further submit that, the Tahsildar, Shamshabad submitted report to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy in file No.B/1604/2017 dated 14.07.2017 stating that the 17 mutations were sanctioned without implementation of Sethwar in revenue records as per the orders of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, dated 16.08.2008, the mutation orders are required to be set aside under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 and therefore, the cancellation proposals were submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendra Nagar vide ref. No.B/1604/2017 dated 10.07.2017. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Shamshabad cancelled the 17 sale deeds on 23.09.2017. Further, the mutation orders passed by the Tahsildar, in file No.B/434/2008, dated 07.02.2009 were set aside by the Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District vide orders dated 06.02.2021 in file No.D5/3408/2017. No.B/1604/2017 dated 10.07.2017. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Shamshabad cancelled the 17 sale deeds on 23.09.2017. Further, the mutation orders passed by the Tahsildar, in file No.B/434/2008, dated 07.02.2009 were set aside by the Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District vide orders dated 06.02.2021 in file No.D5/3408/2017. 30. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that all the official respondents have taken very care while passing the orders and the subject sale deeds were rightly cancelled and there are no merits in the writ petitions and requested to dismiss all the writ petitions. 31 . The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue in support of their contentions, relied on the following citations: 1. Kailash Vs. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department, Hyderabad, 2018 SCC Online Hyd 2096 2. P.S.Parthasarathy Vs. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others , [2019 SCC OnLine TS 2504] CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATIONS 32. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, while adopting the contentions of the Revenue Department, would submit that, the Tahsildar, Shamshabad, represented before the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, stating that the District Collector has issued letter No.E1/4294/2017, dated 22.09.2017 for cancellation of 17 Registered Sale Deeds and accordingly the Tahsildar, presented cancellation deeds before the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad requesting for registration of cancellation of sale deeds, as such the Sub-Registrar, has registered the said cancellation deeds by following the instructions of the District Collector and the Tahsildar and thus there is no illegality in cancellation of the subject sale deeds and there are no merits in the writ petitions and requested to dismiss all the writ petitions. CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS 33. After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that in all the writ petitions the petitioners are questioning the impugned letter of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, in Lr. No.E1/4294/ 2017 dated 22.09.2017 addressed to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad directing him to take steps to cancel the registration of Seventeen (17) documents including documents pertaining to the petitioners or their Vendors and others on various dates in respect of the lands situated in Sy.Nos.38, 54, 55 and 56, situated at Bahadurguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal. No.E1/4294/ 2017 dated 22.09.2017 addressed to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad directing him to take steps to cancel the registration of Seventeen (17) documents including documents pertaining to the petitioners or their Vendors and others on various dates in respect of the lands situated in Sy.Nos.38, 54, 55 and 56, situated at Bahadurguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal. In pursuance to the said letter, the Tahsildar, Shamshabad addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad in letter No.1604/2017 dated 23.09.2017 to cancel the seventeen (17) sale deeds and the cancellation of sale deeds were executed on 23.09.2017 including the Sale Deeds of the petitioner in WP No.36478/2017 and also the Vendors of the petitioners in WP Nos.16657/2020 and 1280/2024. 34. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners or their vendors have purchased the subject properties through valid registered documents on different dates from their respective Vendors i.e. Mr.Khader Ali Khan and others, who are the legal heirs of Smt.Lateefunnisa Begum, as declared by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.4788 of 2006 on the file of VIII-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Before cancellation of the documents by the respondent authorities, the petitioners or their vendors have approached the revenue authorities for mutation of their names in respect of the subject lands. Initially, the Tahsildar, rejected the applications for mutation of the records in Memo No.434/2004 dated 11.04.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners or their respective vendors have approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella and filed appeal in No.C/1795/2008 and the said appeal was also dismissed on 27.05.2008. Challenging the same, they have filed a revision before the Joint Collector in file No.D/3901/2008 and the said revision was disposed of by remanding the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer with a direction to conduct de novo enquiry and pass appropriate orders on 16.08.2008. Upon remand of the said matter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella taken up the enquiry and passed orders on 22.12.2008 in file No.C/4159/2008 with a direction to the Tahsildar, Shamshabad for updating the pahanies of Bahadurguda Village based on the entries of Sethwar, 1954 and Khasara Pahani 1954-55 and its subsequent purchases and also directed him to take into consideration of the request for rectifying the area survey number-wise by recording the names of the original pattadars on record and for the balance of land without disturbing the present pattadars as well as the Government. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar, passed orders in File No.B/434/2008/1, dated 17.02.2009 to record the names of the vendors of the petitioners or the petitioners as Pattadars. 35. While it being so, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy issued impugned Proceedings in Letter No.E1/4294/2017 dated 22.09.2017 directing the Tahsildar to take necessary steps for cancellation of seventeen (17) sale deeds including the sale deeds of the petitioners and their vendors. In turn, the Tahsildar, executed cancellation deeds and the same were entertained by the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad. Now, the Proceedings of the District Collector in Lr.No.E1/4294/2017 dated 22.09.2017 and registering the cancellation of the sale deeds of the petitioners or their vendors are the subject matters in these writ petitions. 36 . The main contention of the petitioners is that the lands situated in Sy.Nos.38, 54, 55 and 56 of Bahadurguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal are not in the prohibited list and there is no proceeding to show that the said lands were prohibited from Registration under Section 22-A of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908. The legal heirs of Smt.Lateefunisa Begum, declared by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.4788 of 2006, sold the property to the petitioners or their vendors through valid registered documents and at no point of time the said property was shown as Government land in the revenue records. The petitioners stated that only after verifying the revenue records as well as the Encumbrance Certificates, the petitioners have purchased the lands through valid registered documents. Now, the respondent authorities without issuing any proper notice to the petitioners, behind back of the petitioners, issued impugned proceedings and cancelled the registered sale deeds of the petitioners or their vendors through cancellation deeds. At the same time even after issuing the impugned proceedings by the District Collector in Lr.No.E1/4294/2017 dated 22.09.2017, the respondent authorities are entertaining the registrations of others in respect of the same survey numbers treating as private lands. The said action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 37. The contention of the respondents is that the subject property falls in Sy.Nos.28 and 62, but the respondents failed produce any document or proceedings issued by the competent authority declaring that subject lands were merged in Sy.Ns.28 and 62. The said action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 37. The contention of the respondents is that the subject property falls in Sy.Nos.28 and 62, but the respondents failed produce any document or proceedings issued by the competent authority declaring that subject lands were merged in Sy.Ns.28 and 62. This Court specifically questioned the respondents, whether any Notification was issued under Section 22-A of the Act prohibiting the said survey numbers from registration, they failed to produce any such record or documents. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad executed cancellation deeds in respect of the lands of the petitioners and their vendors basing on the letter addressed by the District Collector in Letter No.E1/4294/2017 dated 22.09.2017. At the same time, the contention of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities are registering the documents in respect of the very same survey numbers even after issuing the letter of the District Collector dated 22.09.2017 and there is no denial by the respondents in their counters for this contention. 38. During the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue produced a letter No.E1/4432/2004 dated 05.02.2025, addressed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy to the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad giving list of immovable properties under Section 22-A of Bahadurguda village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In the said list, the lands in Bahadurguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.150.00 guntas in Sy.No.28 was shown as Poramboke, an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.43, an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.45 was shown as Bhoodan and an extent of Ac.500.00 Guntas in Sy.No.62 of Bahadurguda was shown as Poramboke. It clearly shows that in the recent Prohibited list also there is no mention about survey numbers i.e. 38, 54, 55 and 56 of Bahadurguda Village, in which subject lands are situated. Without there being any notification under Section 22-A of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 in respect of the subject lands, the question of invoking powers under Rule-243 of Telangana Rules under the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 and cancelling the registered documents of the petitioners or their vendors unilaterally is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, the cancellation deeds executed by the Tahsildar, Shamshabad are liable to be set aside. 39 . 39 . The contention of the respondents is that mutation of revenue records for the suit schedule property was cancelled by the Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District in File No.D5/3408/2017 dated 06.02.2021 and the petitioners cannot rely on the revenue records. In fact, after registration of the cancellation deeds, the mutation proceedings were cancelled pending the writ petitions in WP Nos.36478 of 2017 and 16657 of 2020. In view of the same, the said proceedings cannot be taken into account for disposal of these writ petitions. The validity of said proceedings can be decided in appropriate proceedings. 40. The Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. The relevant portions of the Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are extracted as under: In State of Uttaranchal and another Vs., Sunil Kumar and others (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “23. It is settled law that all executive actions of the Government of India and the Government of a State are required to be taken in the name of the President or the Governor of the State concerned, as the case may be [Articles 77(1) and 166(1)]. Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the president or the Governor of a State, as the case may be, are required to be authenticated in the manner specified in rules made by the President or the Governor, as the case may be [Articles 77(2) and 166(2)]. In other words, unless an order is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules, the same cannot be treated as an order on behalf of the Government” In Thota Ganga Laxmi Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “5. In other words, unless an order is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules, the same cannot be treated as an order on behalf of the Government” In Thota Ganga Laxmi Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “5. In this connection, we may also refer to Rule 26 (k) (i) relating to Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908, which states: "i) The registering officer shall ensure at the time of preparation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyances on 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 natural 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 or a 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 or properties not registerable by any provision of law." A reading of the above Rule also supports the observations we have made above. It is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent court that the cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to the parties concerned. In this case, neither is there any declaration by a competent court nor was there any notice to the parties. Hence, this Rule also makes it clear that both the cancellation deed as well as registration thereof were wholly void and non est and meaningless transactions. In Gaddam Laxmaiah and others Vs. Commissioner and Inspector (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme court held as under: “28. As seen earlier, Section 17 of the REGISTRATION ACT deals with the documents where registration is compulsory and Section 18 deals with the documents where registration is optional. In Gaddam Laxmaiah and others Vs. Commissioner and Inspector (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme court held as under: “28. As seen earlier, Section 17 of the REGISTRATION ACT deals with the documents where registration is compulsory and Section 18 deals with the documents where registration is optional. Section 32A thereof provides that every document, whether its registration is compulsory or optional, shall be signed by every person such as the vendor as well as the purchaser or the parties on the first part and second part, shall also bear their finger-prints and photographs. Section 34 mandates that registering authority to hold an enquiry in respect of validity of the document presented for registration. Under clause (a) of sub-section (3) thereof registering authority is obliged to enquire before registration whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed. A sale or any other document of similar nature is essentially an executed contract between two parties on mutual agreed conditions. The question is, therefore, whether such agreement can be unilaterally rescinded, particularly, in the case of a sale deed or Development Agreement-cum-GPA for that matter. In this context, we may also refer to Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It provides the contracts which need not be performed. According to this provision, any novation, rescission and alteration of contract can be made by the parties i.e., only bilaterally. A deed of cancellation, in our opinion, amounts to rescission of contract and if the issue in question is viewed from that angle, in the light of the provisions of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, any rescission must be only bilateral. We agree with the view expressed by the Madras High Court in E.K. Kalyan v. Inspector General of Registration . Having regard to the above provisions, in our opinion, a registered sale deed or any other document such as Development Agreement- cum-GPA, which creates right in favour of the party in the subject-matter of document, if sought to be cancelled, registration of such deed must be at the instance of both the parties. In other words, even execution of a deed of cancellation of the registered document which created rights in favour of the other party in the subject-matter of the document, cannot be registered unilaterally but it should be bilateral. In other words, even execution of a deed of cancellation of the registered document which created rights in favour of the other party in the subject-matter of the document, cannot be registered unilaterally but it should be bilateral. In any case, the document, which is compulsorily registerable, some restrictions, in our opinion, must be applied even for cancellation of such document as well. The Commissioner has, therefore, rightly issued the circular, restricting registration of a deed of cancellation of any document, such as Development Agreement-cum-GPA, at the instance of only one/first party to such document. We are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any provision specifically empowering registering authority to entertain a document of cancellation for registration, without signatures of both the parties, a deed of cancellation cannot be entertained and registered and that the impugned circular issued by the Inspector General is binding on all parties. Having so observed, we find no infirmity in the impugned circular issued by the Commissioner/Inspector General, in exercise of the powers of general superintendence contemplated by Section 69(1) of the REGISTRATION ACT . By issuing the impugned circular, in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the REGISTRATION ACT , this very objective, in our opinion, sought to be achieved. 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, emanating therefrom. 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. 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. 41. Moreover, the Tahsildar, Shamshabad cancelled the sale deeds by referring Rule-243 of Telangana Rules under the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908. The said Rules reads as follows: '243. The Authority/Officer competent may execute a document cancelling any previously registered document executed by unauthorized persons affecting the interest in immovable properties listed in Section 22-A; and notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or these Rules, the Registering Officer shall register it.' As per the above said Rule, when the property was declared as prohibited property under Section 22-A of the REGISTRATION ACT , the authority may execute cancellation deed unilaterally without issuing notice. In the instant cases, though the subject properties are not notified as Prohibited Property under Section 22-A of the Act, without any power or authority, the respondent authorities have unilaterally executed cancellation deeds cancelling the sale deeds of the petitioners or their vendors and the Registering authority registered the same, which is arbitrary and illegal. 42. Further, the Executive cannot deprive a person of his property of any kind without specific legal authority as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Yerikala Sunkalamma and another Vs., State of Andhra Pradesh , [2025 SCC Online SC 630] . The relevant portion of the said Judgment is extracted as under: “125. Article 300-A provides that the property of a person can be deprived by authority of law. The phrase “save by authority of law” came before the Court for interpretation. This Court in the case of Wazir Chand v. State of H.P., reported in (1954) 1 SCC 787 held that under the Constitution, the Executive cannot deprive a person of his property of any kind without specific legal authority which can be established in Court of law, however laudable the motive behind such deprivation may be. This Court in the case of Wazir Chand v. State of H.P., reported in (1954) 1 SCC 787 held that under the Constitution, the Executive cannot deprive a person of his property of any kind without specific legal authority which can be established in Court of law, however laudable the motive behind such deprivation may be. In the same decision, this Court also held that in case of dispossession of property except under the authority of law, the owner may obtain restoration of possession by a proceeding for mandamus against the governmental authorities. Further, this Court in Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1982) 1 SCC 39 held that the phrase “by authority of law” means by or under a law made by the competent Legislature. The same position is reiterated by this Court in the case of Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat reported in 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596 wherein it has been observed that “Article 300-A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300-A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation.” (Emphasis added) 43. The Judgments relied on by the learned Assistant Government Pleader in Kailash Vs. State of Telangana (supra-) and P.S.Parthasarathy Vs. State of Telangana ( supra-) are not apply to the facts of the case, as there are no valid proceedings to show that the respondents authorities have issued any notification under section 22-A of the REGISTRATION ACT prohibiting the suit schedule lands as on the date of purchase of the subjects lands by the vendors of the petitioners or the petitioners and as on this date also there is no prohibition in respect of the subject lands for registration under Secton 22-A of the REGISTRATION ACT and there is no document to show that the suit properties are in the instant cases merged in Sy.Nos.28 and 62 of Bahadurguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 44. 44. In the instant cases, it clearly shows that the registering authority registered the impugned cancellation deeds, cancelling the earlier registered documents of the petitioners and their vendors, without any order from the competent authority under Section 22-A of the REGISTRATION ACT and the contrary to the Rules 26 (i) (k) and 243 of the Telangana Rules under the REGISTRATION ACT . 45 . The respondent authorities have cancelled the sale deeds of the vendors of the petitioners in WP Nos.16657/2020 and 1280/2024 without taking into account of the subsequent sale deeds, which were executed in favour of the petitioners and without issuing any notice to them and the said action of the respondent authorities is also arbitrary and illegal. 46 . Further, with regard to the aspect of maintainability of the instant writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. S.P.Velayutham and others , [ 2022 (8) SCC 210 ] , held as under: “57. In suits for declaration of title and/or suits for declaration that a registered document is null and void, all the aforesaid three steps which comprise the entire process of execution and registration come under challenge. If a party questions the very execution of a document or the right and title of a person to execute a document and present it for registration, his remedy will only be to go to the civil court. But where a party questions only the failure of the registering authority to perform his statutory duties in the course of the third step, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 stands completely ousted . This is for the reason that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is to ensure that statutory authorities perform their duties within the bounds of law. 58. It must be noted that when a High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 finds that there was utter failure on the part of the registering authority to stick to the mandate of law, the Court merely cancels the act of registration, but does not declare the very execution of the document to be null and void. It must be noted that when a High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 finds that there was utter failure on the part of the registering authority to stick to the mandate of law, the Court merely cancels the act of registration, but does not declare the very execution of the document to be null and void. A declaration that a document is null and void, is exclusively within the domain of the civil court, but it does not mean that the High Court cannot examine the question whether or not the registering authority performed his statutory duties in the manner prescribed by law. 59. It is well settled that if something is required by law to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done only in that manner and not otherwise. Examining whether the registering authority did something in the manner required by law or otherwise is certainly within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. However, it is needless to say that the High Courts may refuse to exercise jurisdiction in cases where the violations of procedure on the part of the registering authority are not gross or the violations do not shock the conscience of the Court. Lack of jurisdiction is completely different from a refusal to exercise jurisdiction." {Emphasis added) 47. In the instant cases also, the registering authority failed to perform their statutory duties while registering the impugned cancellation deeds. In view of the same, the writ petitions are maintainable under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 48. The petitioner in W.P.No.16657 of 2020 questioned the Cancellation of Document dated 20.12.2007, vide document No.140/2008, pertaining to the total extent of Ac.45.37 Guntas, with A, B, C and D Schedule lands, situated in Sy.Nos.52, 53, 54 and 59 situated at Bahadurguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, but the petitioner is concerned only with regard to land to an extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas of land in Sy.No.54 purchased by him vide document No.139/2010 dated 22.01.2010. The vendor of the petitioner or other purchasers have not questioned before this Court about the cancellation of document No.140 of 2008. 49. The vendor of the petitioner or other purchasers have not questioned before this Court about the cancellation of document No.140 of 2008. 49. Likewise, the petitioner in W.P.No.1280 of 224 questioned the Cancellation of Document dated 20.12.2007, vide document No.143/2008, pertaining to the total extent of Ac.26.16 Guntas, situated in Sy.No.56 situated at Bahadurguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, but the petitioner is concerned only with regard to land to an extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas of land in Sy.No.56 purchased by him vide document No.1277 of 2009 dated 30.04.2009. The vendor of the petitioner or other purchasers have not questioned before this Court about the cancellation of document No.143 of 2008. 50 . In view of the above circumstances, the action of the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad in entertaining registration of the impugned cancellation deeds unilaterally at the instance of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy in Lr.No.E1/4294/2017 dated 22.09.2017 and the letter of the Tahsildar, Shamshabad in Lr.No.1604/2017 dated 23.09.2017, is totally illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rules-26 (i) (k) and 243 of Telangana Rules under the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 and accordingly the same are liable to be set aside in so far as the petitioners are concerned. 52. In the light of the above findings, all these writ petitions are allowed, by setting aside the impugned Cancellation Deeds (i) CS No.5924/2017 & Document No.4987/2017 dated 23.09.2017 in respect of entire extent mentioned in document No.133/2008 dated 20.12.2007; (ii) CS No.5914/2017 & Document No.4978/2017 in so far as the land to an extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas only in Sy.No.54, situated at Bahadurguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, purchased by the petitioner in WP No.16657 of 2020 and (iii) CS No.5916/2017 & Document No.4980/2017 in so far as the land to an extent of extent of Ac.6.00 Guntas only in Sy.No.56, situated at Bahadurguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, purchased by the petitioner in WP No.1280/2024 and the respondent authorities are directed to take all necessary steps accordingly for making necessary entries in the relevant registers. It is also made clear that this order does not preclude the Government/District Collector to take appropriate steps as warranted by law and to assert its title. If any proceedings/suit/appeal pending between the executants of the documents/Government or any other interested property, the registered documents will be subject to the result of that proceedings/suit/appeal. No order as to costs. It is also made clear that this order does not preclude the Government/District Collector to take appropriate steps as warranted by law and to assert its title. If any proceedings/suit/appeal pending between the executants of the documents/Government or any other interested property, the registered documents will be subject to the result of that proceedings/suit/appeal. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.