ORDER : K.S. HEMALEKHA, J. The petitioners, who claim to be the absolute owners in possession of 30 guntas and 20 guntas respectively in Sy.No.14/3 of Kodigehalli Village under Registered sale deeds dated 30.03.1992, have approached this Court, calling in question the impugned order dated 29.04.2010 passed by respondent No.1-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, whereby the registration of their sale deeds have been cancelled by invoking Rule 17(iii) read with Rule 123 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 (‘Rules, 1965’ for short). Brief facts: 2. The original owners, Hanumanthappa and Venkatappa had sold 30 guntas and 20 guntas in Sy.No.14/3 to the petitioners through registered sale deeds dated 30.03.1992, and the petitioners’ names were mutated in the revenue records. Sy.No.14/3 was initially notified for acquisition under notification dated 04.01.1985 followed by final notification on 22.09.1986 for the benefit of the respondent No.5-NTI Housing Cooperative Society. The petitioners had called in question the acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.33211-212/1994, which came to be dismissed. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) issued an endorsement on 17.06.2009, along with the award in L.A.C.No.47/1986-87, recording that only 1 acre 39 guntas of Sy.No.14/3 was acquired and that 2 acres belonging to the petitioners’ vendors was not part of the acquisition. It is stated that respondent No.5 applied for cancellation of the petitioners’ sale deeds, leading to respondent No.1 issuing a show cause notice and ultimately passing the impugned order canceling the registration of the sale deeds. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Commissioner has no authority in law to cancel a registered document, such power is exclusively in the domain of the Civil Court. Relying upon Rule 123 of Rules, 1965 submits that the said Rule permits only recording of a cancellation when a subsequent document itself cancels or modifies an earlier one. It does not empower the authority to cancel a sale deed. Neither Rule 17(iii) of the Rules, 1965 confer any substantive power. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction, without notice and without recording any findings. The land has been de-notified excluded from acquisition and therefore the sale in 1992 was valid. 5. It does not empower the authority to cancel a sale deed. Neither Rule 17(iii) of the Rules, 1965 confer any substantive power. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction, without notice and without recording any findings. The land has been de-notified excluded from acquisition and therefore the sale in 1992 was valid. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 contends that the petitioners’ sale deeds were executed during the pendency of acquisition and therefore their registration is liable to be annulled. Further, it is stated that the land was acquired for the housing society and therefore the sale deeds executed by the vendors require cancellation under Rule 123 of the Rules, 1965 and the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the order, which warrants no interference. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether respondent No.1-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru had a legal authority to cancel the registration of the petitioners’ sale deed dated 03.03.1992 by invoking Rule 17(iii) read with Rule 123 of the Rules, 1965, and whether the impugned order dated 29.04.2010 is sustainable in law? 7. The registered sale deed dated 30.03.1992 in favour of the petitioners were cancelled by respondent No.1-Special Deputy Commissioner by order dated 29.04.2010. At the outset, it must be noted that the Deputy Commissioner is not a registering authority within the meaning of the Registration Act, 1908, which recognizes only Inspector General of Registration, District Registrars and Sub-Registrars as registering authorities. Respondent No.1, therefore, lacked even the basic statutory competence to deal with, much less cancel, a registered sale deed. 8. The Rule 123 of the Rules, 1965 reads thus: “123. Respondent No.1, therefore, lacked even the basic statutory competence to deal with, much less cancel, a registered sale deed. 8. The Rule 123 of the Rules, 1965 reads thus: “123. Cancellation, etc., of a registered document.- (i) On the registration of a document which revokes or cancels or rectifies an error, in, or modifies the terms of a document previously registered in the same class or Register book or of a return of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition act or of a document received and filed under Section 89 (vide Rule 17), or on the receipt of a communication from a Revenue Officer or from a Court which intimates a similar revocations, cancellation, rectification or modification, a note shall be entered at the foot of the entry of the latter document or communication as under.- "This Document/Communication revokes (cancels, rectifies or modifes) Document No. of .......copied the document filed/the return filed at pages …………volume of book/supplement to Book No.1. (Part)/file book ...............and at the foot of the previous entry or of the document previously registered or filed a note shall be entered as shown below.- This document/documents/return has been revoked (cancelled, rectified or modified by Document No............... of .............. copied/the document filed/ the return filed at pages ……….. volume of book/supplement to Book No.1 (Part)/file book." (ii) When the revocation, cancellation rectification or modification is of a document relating to immovable property, a corresponding note shall also be entered in Index No. II and when it relates to the rectification of any particular item entered Index, I, II, III or IV, a note of rectification shall also be entered in the respective index against the particular item rectified.” Emphasis supplied 9. Rule 17(iii) reads thus: “ 17. Supplement to Register Book No.1 and File of Copies and Translation . – (i) xxxx (ii) xxxx (iii) A separate file shall also be maintained for communications received from officers of other departments intimating the cancellations, modification or rectification of transactions evidenced by papers previously filed or registered.” 10. Rule 123 of the Rules, 1965 does not confer any independent power on the Registrar to cancel a registered document. It merely prescribes how to record a cancellation after a valid cancellation event occurs. A cancellation under Rule 123 must originate from i) A subsequent registered document which expressly revokes, cancels, rectifies or modifies an earlier registered document. Rule 123 of the Rules, 1965 does not confer any independent power on the Registrar to cancel a registered document. It merely prescribes how to record a cancellation after a valid cancellation event occurs. A cancellation under Rule 123 must originate from i) A subsequent registered document which expressly revokes, cancels, rectifies or modifies an earlier registered document. ii) A communication from a competent Court or a communication from a revenue officer, who himself has lawful jurisdiction to order such cancellation. Thus, the registering authority's Rule is purely ministerial administrative. It records the fact of cancellation but does not decide or adjudicate whether the sale deed is valid or invalid. Rule 123 of the Rules, 1965 cannot be invoked to cancel a registered sale deed. Rule 123 merely enables the registering authority to record on the register the cancellation already effected through a subsequent registered document or a competent judicial/revenue communication, it does not empower the authority to unilaterally cancel a registered sale deed and may any such exercise of power is only without jurisdiction. 11. It is well settled and consistently reiterated principle of law that the power to declare, cancel, annul or set aside a registered sale deed lies exclusively within the domain of competent civil Court exercising plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Registration Act, 1908 does not confer any authority upon a Sub-Registrar, District Registrar, Inspector General of Registration or any Revenue Authority, including the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate upon the validity of a registered conveyance or to unilaterally cancel a sale deed. 12. Once a document is registered, the registering authorities also becomes functus officio and its role is purely ministerial. Neither Rule 17(iii) nor Rule 123 of the Rules, 1965, provides any substantive power to cancel a registered instrument, both provisions merely prescribed administrative notice when a valid cancellation is already effected by a competent Court or through a subsequent registered instrument. Any attempt by an administrative or Revenue Authority to cancel a sale deed amounts to an act wholly without jurisdiction, ultra vires and void ab initio. The registering officer has no power to cancel a registered sale deed and that question of title, validity of conveyance and allegations of fraud or illegality falls exclusively within the province of civil Court. Any attempt by an administrative or Revenue Authority to cancel a sale deed amounts to an act wholly without jurisdiction, ultra vires and void ab initio. The registering officer has no power to cancel a registered sale deed and that question of title, validity of conveyance and allegations of fraud or illegality falls exclusively within the province of civil Court. The impugned cancellation order nevertheless is issued by the Deputy Commissioner being an exercise undertaken by an authority inherently lacking jurisdiction is non-est in the eye of law and liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 13. Rule 17(iii) of the Rules, 1965 deals with the maintenance of books, indexes, records in registration offices. It only prescribes how the registering authority must record communication received from the Revenue Officer of Court. It does not grant any power to cancel a registered document. It applies only to return of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and documents filed under Section 89 of the Registration Act. Therefore, neither Rule 17(iii) nor Rule 123 of the Rules, 1965 empowers the Deputy Commissioner or any registering authority to unilaterally cancel a registered sale deed. The rule does even not confer any substantial power upon the Deputy Commissioner or any registering authority to cancel a registered sale deed. Therefore, reliance placed on Rule 17(iii) in the impugned order is wholly misconception and suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction. 14. Endorsement dated 17.06.2009 and the award in L.A.C.No.47/1986-87 makes it clear that the lands purchased by the petitioners were not part of the acquisition and this vital fact has not been considered at all by the authority. However, the order passed is one without jurisdiction and void ab initio and the delay in approaching the Court cannot breathe life into a nullity. The point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 29.04.2010 passed by respondent No.1 canceling the registration of the petitioners’ sale deeds dated 30.03.1992 is hereby quashed. iii. Any mutation, khata transfer or proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned order stands annulled. iv. Liberty is reserved to the aggrieved party to work out their remedies before the competent civil Court, if so, advised.