THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.913 OF 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Y. Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Mr. S.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. This intra court appeal has been filed against the order 16.06.2023 in W.P.No.18097 of 2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 has been allowed.
4. The parties in this appeal shall be referred to as their rankings before the learned Single Judge.
5. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 have executed a development agreement-cum-general power of attorney dated 05.03.2009 in favour of the petitioner in respect of land in various survey numbers situated in Motighanpur Village and Gram Panchayat, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 have cancelled the aforesaid power of attorney by executing a ::2::
cancellation deed on 28.05.2014 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to discharge her obligations under the development agreement. The petitioner challenged the action of the Joint Sub-Registrar in registration of cancellation deed dated 28.05.2014 in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge has allowed the aforesaid writ petition. In the aforesaid background, this appeal has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the cancellation deed was executed and registered on 28.05.2014, whereas Rule 26(k) of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act were amended on 02.06.2014. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that there are civil disputes between the parties and, therefore, ought to have relegated the writ petitioner to the remedy of civil suit.
7. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
8. The unamended Rule 26(i)(k)(i), prior to its amendment on 02.06.2014, reads as under:
"26. (i) Every document shall, before acceptance for registration, be examined by the Registering Officer to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act ::3::
and in these rules have been complied with, for instance:
xxxxx xxxxx
(k)(i) The registrating 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".
9. Even after the amendment by way of G.O.Ms.No.121 (Revenue for Registration-I Department) dated 01.06.2016 w.e.f., 02.06.2014, the Rule reads as under:
"26. (i) Every document shall, before acceptance for registration examined by the Registering Officer to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act and in these rules have been complied with, for instance:
xxxxx xxxxx
(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 even prior to its amendment and even after the amendment, the Rule substantially remains to be the same.
The registration of cancellation deed without party's consent is ::4::
impermissible in law and contrary to Rule 26(k) of the Rules made under the Registration Act. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction Company(India) Limited v. S.P.Velayutham 1 and has held that in case of violation of any rule or provision of Registration Act or failure of registering authorities in following the law, the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
11. In the result, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date:19.09.2023 Lrkm 1 (2022) 8 SCC 210