THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.A.No. 608 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. K.R.K.Gargeya, learned counsel for the appellant;
Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned Government Pleader
for Revenue representing respondents No.1, 2 and 3; and
Mr. C.Kapil Sagar, respondent No.5-in-person.
2. This writ appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.No.11860 of 2019 filed by respondents No.4, 5 and 6 as the writ petitioners.
3. The related writ petition was filed by respondents No.4 to 6 questioning the action of respondent No.3- Sub-Registrar, Stamps and Registration, Kukatpally in registering the deeds of cancellation of gift settlement deeds bearing documents No.3138, 3139 and 3140 dated 25.04.2008.
::2::
4. We find from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.11.2021 that respondent No.5 being petitioner No.2 in the related writ petition had appeared in person before the learned Single Judge, representing the three writ petitioners, who are respondents No.4, 5 and 6 herein. Grievance expressed by them in the writ petition was that the gift settlement deeds bearing documents No. 1856, 1857 and 1858 of 2000 dated 16.03.2000 were cancelled vide the deeds of cancellation bearing Nos. 3138, 3139 and 3140 of 2008 dated 25.04.2008 by respondent No.3 without issuing notice.
6. Learned Single Judge referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1 as well as the Full Bench decision of this Court in Yanala Malleswari v. Ananthula Sayamma2 and thereafter held that the gift settlement deeds whereby the title in respect of the property in question was transferred could not have been cancelled 1 (2010) 15 SCC 207 2 AIR 2007 AP 57 2006 (6) ALT 523 ::3::
without the participation of the contesting parties. Therefore, order of respondent No.3 dated 25.04.2008 was set aside.
7. This aspect of the matter was considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sri Govindram Agarwal v. Commissioner and Inspector General, Stamps and Registration3 whereafter it was held as follows:
We have carefully gone through the decision of the Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi's case (supra). We do not find any ratio laid down in the said decision that against unilateral cancellation of development agreement by a private party, aggrieved party has the remedy of filing writ petition.
On the contrary, as pointed out by learned Single Judge, a Full Bench of this Court in Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma (supra) held that writ petition is not maintainable against cancellation of an instrument and the aggrieved person has to approach the civil court. This decision carne up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2016) 10 SCC 767] where the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court examined Thota Ganga Laxmi's 3 W.A.No.1472 of 2017 decided on 28.07.2022 ::4::
case (supra). Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition by giving liberty to the appellant to pursue his statutory remedy.
Thus on due consideration, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. No case for interference is made out. Writ Appeal is dismissed
8. Following the above decision of the Coordinate Bench in Sri Govindram Agarwal v. Commissioner and Inspector General, Stamps and Registration (3 supra), we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.11860 of 2019.
9. Consequently, this Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 13.10.2022 LUR/SUS