Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1514 (TS)

Satyanarayan Soni v. State of A. P.

2025-11-14

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : Gadi Praveen Kumar, J. When the matter was called on 12.12.2024 and again on 30.01.2025 and 30.10.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Despite issuance of notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5 through paper publication, none appeared on their behalf. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the 3 rd respondent i.e. the Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy, Medak District, in entertaining and registering cancellation of Irrevocable General Power of Attorney (IGPA) dated 26.07.2013 vide Doc.No.53/IV/2013, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Circular Memo No.G.1/Can/4028/2010 dated 31.03.2010 issued by the 2 nd respondent and also provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and a consequential direction to declare the deed of Cancellation of IGPA dated 26.07.2013 vide Doc.No.53/IV/2013, as null and void and set aside the same. 3. The brief facts of the case as per the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the absolute owners and possessors of land in Survey No.313 admeasuring 1000 square yards out of total area of 1255 square yards situated at Rajampet Village, Sanga Reddy Town and Mandal, Medak District; that they have given the said land for development to the petitioner; and that pursuant thereto, they had executed a registered IGPA dated 18.10.1999 vide Document No.30 of 1999, authorizing the petitioner to enter into agreement of sale, receive sale consideration and to execute sale deeds in respect of the developed flats in the subject land. 4. 4. It is further stated in the affidavit that after execution of IGPA, the petitioner had developed the subject property by making huge investments and raised multi-storied building in the name and style of “M/s.Chandra Towers” comprising of more than 50 flats; that only 14 flats, out of 50 flats, were not sold, and in respect of the said 14 flats, the petitioner had executed agreement of sale in favour of one Mukund Das Soni; and as the said Mukund Das Soni failed to comply with the terms of agreement, the petitioner could not execute the registered sale deed; that the said Mukund Das Soni instituted a suit, vide O.S.No.58 of 2009 on the file of the learned Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, seeking specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the above said 14 flats; and that the petitioner had settled the dispute with Mukund Das Soni in respect of the unsold flats and agreed to register sale deeds in his favour. While so, respondent Nos.4 and 5 had executed a cancellation of IGPA dated 26.07.2013 unilaterally cancelling the registered IGPA dated 18.10.1999 without issuing notice to the petitioner, which action of the 3 rd respondent in entertaining and registering cancellation of IGPA dated 26.07.2013, is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this Writ Petition. 5. The 3 rd respondent filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the official respondents, stating that respondent Nos.4 and 5 had executed a cancellation of IGPA on 26.07.2013 revoking the GPA previously registered as Document No.30 of 1999 in favour of the petitioner and got the same registered as Document No.53/IV/2013 at Sub-Registrar’s Office, Sanga Reddy, since there is no prohibition against its registration. 6. While denying the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit, it is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the Revocation of GPA was registered on 26.07.2013 by following the instructions of Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, vide Memo No.Rc.No.G1/10547/2008 dated 18.07.2008, wherein it was stated that documents of revocations other than sales and conveyance such as deeds of Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA, Development of Agreement-cum-GPA, Partition Releases and Mortgages etc., can be cancelled and registered, if they were executed unilaterally, since amendment to registration Rule 26(i)(k) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Rules’) was not made applicable to those documents. 7. 7. It is also contended in the counter-affidavit, through Circular Memo No.G1/Ca/4028/2010 dated 31.03.2010, issued by the 2 nd respondent, that the Cancellation of General Power of Attorney coupled with previously registered Agreement of Sale/ Development Agreement shall be subjected to Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules, in order to safeguard the interests of the parties; and that the original document being a GPA but not coupled with Agreement of sale/development agreement, neither the provisions of Registration Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules nor the executive instructions issued by the 2 nd respondent are applicable to the present case, since no contractual obligation is involved and though the petitioner mentioned that the GPA executed on 21.10.1999 is irrevocable, the word ‘irrevocable’ is not provided for General Power of Attorney in the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It is further stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of cancellation of IGPA, he can approach the competent Civil Court and there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have given my earnest consideration to the contentions urged by the parties, and perused the record. 9.It is settled position of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others , [ (2016) 10 SCC 767 ] that the power to register a document of cancellation cannot be construed to confer a quasi-judicial power on the registering authority, and 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. 10. The Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand (supra) observed as under: “34. The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once the document is registered (see Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan). Section 17 of the 1908 Act deals with documents which require compulsory registration. Extinguishment deed is one such document referred to in Section 17(1)(b). Section 18 of the same Act deals with documents, registration whereof is optional. Section 20 of the Act deals with documents containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations. Section 21 provides for description of property and maps or plans and Section 22 deals with the description of houses and land by reference to government maps and surveys. Section 18 of the same Act deals with documents, registration whereof is optional. Section 20 of the Act deals with documents containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations. Section 21 provides for description of property and maps or plans and Section 22 deals with the description of houses and land by reference to government maps and surveys. There is no express provision in the 1908 Act which empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. The fact whether the document was properly presented for registration cannot be reopened by the Registrar after its registration. The power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter. In absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is not open to assume that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be competent to cancel the registration of the documents in question. Similarly, the power of the Inspector General is limited to do superintendence of Registration Offices and make rules in that behalf. Even the Inspector General has no power to cancel the registration of any document which has already been registered.” 11. Since the stand of the petitioner in the affidavit is that as one Mukund Das Soni failed to comply with the terms of agreement, he could not execute the registered sale deeds in his favour, and the said Mukund Das Soni had instituted a suit vide O.S.No.58 of 2009 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the said 14 flats, which was later settled but without taking that fact into account, 4 th and 5 th respondents, with an oblique motive, had executed a cancellation of IGPA unilaterally which the 3 rd respondent had registered, without providing any opportunity to the aggrieved parties. 12. In the above context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others , (2010) 15 SCC 207 held as under: “ 5. 12. In the above context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others , (2010) 15 SCC 207 held as under: “ 5. In this connection, we may also refer to Rule 26(k)(i) relating Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, which states: "(i) The registering officer shall ensure at the time of preparation 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 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 officercompetent 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.” 13. Viewed from any angle, the 3 rd respondent has no power to cancel the agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney unilaterally without following the due procedure and without issuing any notice to the affected parties. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate that the impugned registration of document dated 26.07.2013 vide Doc.No.53/IV/2013 is liable to be set aside. It is needless to mention that the aggrieved parties are at liberty to approach the Competent Civil Court to address their grievances, if any. 14. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate that the impugned registration of document dated 26.07.2013 vide Doc.No.53/IV/2013 is liable to be set aside. It is needless to mention that the aggrieved parties are at liberty to approach the Competent Civil Court to address their grievances, if any. 14. Accordingly, the impugned registration of document dated26.07.2013 vide Doc.No.53/IV/2013 is set aside. 15. Subject to above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.