JUDGMENT : RENUKA YARA, J. 1. Heard Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel representing Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.19018 of 2008, Sri Aniketh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1616 of 2014 and Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for the official respondents. Perused the record. W.A.No.1616 of 2014 2. The Writ Appeal is preferred by the appellants/respondent Nos.4 to 8 aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2012 in W.P.No.25686 of 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of respondent No.1/writ petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4/respondent Nos.1 to 3 representing State Government in the writ petition, whereby the writ petition filed seeking action against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for registering cancellation document dated 31.10.2009 in document No.6457 of 2009 which is unilaterally executed by the writ appellants without the knowledge and consent of the writ petitioner by partially cancelling the development agreement-cum-general power of attorney (GPA) dated 27.02.2005 to be declared as illegal and contrary to Rule 26(i)(k) of A.P. Registration Rules, 1908 (for short, ‘the Rules’) and consequently to cancel the same. W.P.No.19018 of 2008 3. The Writ Petition is filed for declaring the action of the District Registrar of Ranga Reddy (respondent No.2) in registering the unilateral cancellation of Release deed bearing No.4972 of 2008, dated 30.06.2008 vide Release deed bearing No.73 of 2008 as illegal and to declare the said Release deed as void. Facts of W.A.No.1616 of 2014: 4. Respondent No.1/writ petitioner is a Private Limited Company which entered into a development agreement dated 27.06.2005 with M/s. Sangam Dattaiah Goud and 16 others who include the writ appellants. The subject matter of the development agreement is a building complex to be constructed in Acs.5.07 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.136, 137 and 156 of Khajaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal with a facility to have a common approach road of 33’ x 320’. The development agreement is registered with the Registrar of Ranga Reddy at Moosapet. In terms of the development agreement, the writ petitioner paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as refundable security deposit to the writ appellants towards their undivided 1/5th share. Further, the writ appellants agreed to sell 50% of their undivided share to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner obtained permission from GHMC and HMDA and developed the property. In terms of the development agreement, the writ petitioner paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as refundable security deposit to the writ appellants towards their undivided 1/5th share. Further, the writ appellants agreed to sell 50% of their undivided share to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner obtained permission from GHMC and HMDA and developed the property. While things stood thus, the writ appellants executed a partial cancellation of development agreement-cum- GPA on 30.10.2009 and the same was registered with the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District at Moosapet. 5. Aggrieved by the unilateral execution of partial cancellation of development agreement-cum-GPA dated 30.10.2009, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.25686 of 2011 for declaring the said document as illegal and contrary to Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules and violative of principles of natural justice. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge after a lengthy discussion about the nature of document together with the application of Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules and Rule 58 of the Rules. The finding of the learned Single Judge reads as follows: “It has already been mentioned that Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules enables the registering authority to refuse registration of a deed of cancellation executed by only one of the parties and purports to cancel the conveyance through sale and that the agreement dated 27.06.2005 has all the ingredients of such conveyance. Assuming that the Rules has no application, it needs to be verified as to whether small fraction of one of the parties can cancel the above transaction. In any bilateral transaction, mutual rights and obligations are defined for each of them. Wherever many persons constitute a party viz., vendors or purchasers, their rights and obligations are joint and several, unless a different arrangement is indicated in the document itself. It may be possible for a party, in its entirety, viz., vendors or purchasers, as a whole, to resile from transaction. It is however impermissible for a small portion of the parties to put an end to be entire transaction.” 6. With the above findings as to facts and law, the learned Single Judge by applying the legal ratio laid down in Thota Ganga Laxmi and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others , (2010) 15 SCC 207 and Yanala Malleswari v. Ananthula Sayamma , 2006 (6) ALT 523 allowed the writ petition leading to filing of the present Writ Appeal. Facts of W.P.No.19018 of 2008 7. The writ petitioner No.1 is a businessman and intended to purchase land from one Ramadevi, who represented herself, to be the owner of land in Sy.No.54/2 admeasuring Ac.1.37 guntas and another piece of land in Sy.No.56 admeasuring Acs.3.22 guntas situated at Hafeezpet Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. The said Ramadevi informed the writ petitioner No.1 that the property is mortgaged to A.P. State Finance Corporation as collateral security for the loan granted by the corporation to M/s.MNG Marine Cargo, Rajahmundry. The said property was proceeded for sale by the Corporation for the purpose of realizing the dues. The writ petitioner No.1 negotiated with A.P. State Financial Corporation and Ramadevi. The said negotiations culminated in the writ petitioner No.1 purchasing property from Ramadevi by paying part sale consideration to Corporation and getting the document released. 8. The writ petitioner No.1 purchased the said property under two registered sale deeds bearing document No.24498 of 2006 and 24497 of 2006 of even date dated 02.12.2006. The land was surveyed and demarcated by revenue department vide file No.K3/2226/07 and the land was delivered by the writ petitioner No.1. The land originally belonged to four brothers, viz., Nimmala Veeraiah, Raja Mallaiah, Prabhakar and Venugopal. As such, by way of abundant caution after purchasing the property under two separate sale deeds from Ramadevi, the writ petitioner No.1 obtained registered Release deed bearing document No.73 of 2007, dated 03.01.2008 from all the family members of Nimmala Prabhakar i.e. respondent Nos.4 to 20. While things stood thus, respondent Nos.4 to 20, who executed the Release deed bearing document No.73 of 2007, without any reason approached respondent No.3 and executed cancellation deed vide document No.4972 of 2008, dated 30.06.2008. According to the writ petitioner No.1, said registration of unilateral cancellation of deed ought not to have been executed and therefore the writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in registering the cancellation of Release deed document as illegal and to declare the said Release deed as void. 9. The subject matter in Writ Appeal No.1616 of 2014 and the current writ petition are about validity of unilateral cancellation of a registered deed, hence both matters have been tagged together. Submissions of writ appellants 10. 9. The subject matter in Writ Appeal No.1616 of 2014 and the current writ petition are about validity of unilateral cancellation of a registered deed, hence both matters have been tagged together. Submissions of writ appellants 10. Learned counsel for the writ appellants would submit that Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules refers only to conveyance of sale but does not refer to an agreement of sale-cum-GPA where there is no transfer of title involved. It is argued that the phrase “conveyance on sale” was not defined under the provisions of Registration Act but is defined under Section 2(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is urged that the learned Single Judge erred in interpreting Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules by holding that an agreement of sale is also a conveyance and therefore, prohibited execution of unilateral cancellation deed. According to the writ appellants, the development agreement dated 27.06.2005 does not satisfy the ingredients of conveyance for the purpose of invoking Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules. Further, as per Rule 58 of the Rules under Registration Act, it shall not be duty of reference officer to enquire into the validity of the document presented before him and therefore, the document dated 30.10.2009 is in accordance with law. 11. The writ appellants sought to distinguish the legal ratio laid down in Thota Ganga Laxmi’ s case (1 supra) and Yanala Malleswari ’s case (2 supra) on the premise that the nature of a sale deed is different from that of an agreement-cum-GPA and therefore unilateral cancellation is permissible. Submissions of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1616 of 2014 and the writ petitioner in W.P.No.19018 of 2008 :- 12. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the judgments of Thota Ganga Laxmi’ s case (supra) and Gaddam Laxmaiah and others v. The Commissioner and Inspector General and others, W.P. Nos. 20683 of 2012 and 2192 of 2013 dated 07.04.2016. 13. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner vehemently argued that the Sub-Registrar under Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules does not have power to register a unilateral document when there is a prior registered document i.e. without participation of all the parties to the registered conveyance deed. Submissions of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in W.A.No.1616 of 2014 :- 14. 13. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner vehemently argued that the Sub-Registrar under Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules does not have power to register a unilateral document when there is a prior registered document i.e. without participation of all the parties to the registered conveyance deed. Submissions of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in W.A.No.1616 of 2014 :- 14. Learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 to 4 supported the writ petitioner stating that the Sub-Registrar does not have power to register unilateral cancellation deed. In that W.P.Nos.20683 of 2012 and 2192 of 2013, dated 07.04.2016. context, reference is made to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.38638 of 2012 dated 10.04.2024. Analysis of the Court 15. The writ appellants have executed unilateral partial cancellation of development agreement-cum-GPA dated 27.02.2005. The development agreement-cum-GPA is originally executed between the writ appellants and the writ petitioner. Now the point to be considered is whether such unilateral cancellation of a registered deed, whether it is a sale deed or an agreement of sale or a development agreement-cum-GPA or a gift deed is valid under law. In that context, the definition of ‘conveyance’ under Section 2(10) of the Registration Act has to be looked into, which is as follows: ‘Conveyance’ :- ‘Conveyance’ includes a conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property, whether movable or immovable, is transferred inter vivos and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule I (or by Schedule 1-A) as the case may be. The Rules framed under the Registration Act clearly lay down the procedure to be followed for registration of cancellation deed. The Rules framed under the Registration Act clearly lay down the procedure to be followed for registration of cancellation deed. Said Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules is as follows: “26(i)(k)(i) The registering officer shall ensure at the time of presentation 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 mutual 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 the Government or Assigned or Endowment lands or properties not registerable by any provision of law.” 16. The primary contention of the writ appellants is that a development agreement-cum-GPA does not fall under the definition of “conveyance” as per Section 2(10) of the Registration Act and therefore, Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules is not applicable. Said issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Gaddam Laxmaiah’ s case (3 supra). 17. In Gaddam Laxmaiah’ s case (3 supra), it is held that: “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, amenating therefrom. xxxx Registration and unilateral cancellation of documents such as Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney under the Registration Act is not permissible in law.” 18. The registration of cancellation document dated 31.10.2009 in document No.6457 of 2009 is not permissible as per statutory provisions, Rules and established legal precedents. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 19. The registration of cancellation document dated 31.10.2009 in document No.6457 of 2009 is not permissible as per statutory provisions, Rules and established legal precedents. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 19. Coming to the subject matter of the Writ Petition, the subject is registration of unilateral cancellation of Release deed, wherein the executor relinquishes his rights in immovable property in favour of the other party. Whereas, unilateral cancellation of such a Release deed adversely affects the right such party in whose favour the rights in immovable property is relinquished. A Gift deed wherein there is transfer of rights by one party in favour of another is akin to a Release deed. Dealing with the issue of unilateral cancellation of gift deed, this Court in W.P.No.38638 of 2012 dated 10.04.2024 , held that: “Admittedly, the Gift Deeds which were executed in favour of the petitioners have been unilaterally cancelled by the respondent No.2 on 05.03.2011. The petitioners are not parties to the aforesaid Deeds of Cancellation. Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules reads as under: 26(i)(k) That the Cancellation Deed of the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale of immovable property is executed by both the executing and the claiming parties thereof unless such Cancellation Deed is executed under the orders of a competent Court or under Rule 243. Thus, it is evident that the Sub Registrar cannot register the Deed of Cancellation until and unless the same is executed by both the parties or is executed under the orders of competent Court or under Rule 243 of the Rules. The aforesaid eventualities under Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules have not been fulfilled in the instant case. Therefore, the cancellation of Gift Deeds is in contravention of Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.” In view of the legal ratio laid down by this Court, the Writ Petition has to be allowed. 20. In the result, W.A.No.1616 of 2014 is dismissed and W.P.No.19018 of 2008 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand disposed of.