Dandu Nagaraju, Anantapur Dist. vs The State Of A.P.,Revenue,Hyd., 3 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9472 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9472 AP
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Dandu Nagaraju, Anantapur Dist. vs The State Of A.P.,Revenue,Hyd., 3 ... on 8 December, 2022

Bench: V.Sujatha

     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
           WRIT PETITION No.34404 of 2015

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

"....to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents No.3 in cancelling the gift deed presented by the 4th respondent vide document No 1623/2015 dated 09.02.2015 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice consequently set aside the same, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the Registered Settlement Deed bearing Document No.944/2000 dt.06.09.2000 through registered cancellation of Sale Deed bearing Document No.2038/2015 dt.18.04.2015 as being illegal, arbitrary, ultravirus, unilateral and contrary to Section 69 of the Registration Act and in violation of orders passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.317/2007 and batch dt.13.07.2010 and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ...."

When the Writ Petition came up for admission, this court passed the Interim Order dated 26.10.2015, which is as follows:

„Prima facie, the impugned cancellation being unilateral cannot be sustained.

Issue notice before admission.

Petitioner to serve notice on respondent No.4 by RPAD, and file proof of service.

Learned Assistant Government for Revenue taken notice and seeks time to get instructions and file counter. The impugned cancellation deed under document No.1623 of 2015, dated 09.02.2015 shall remain suspended, pending further Orders‟.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the lis in this Writ petition is squarely covered by the

Judgment reported in Haji Mohammed Ahmed Vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh and others 1 and

Fazalullah Khan V. State of Andhra Pradesh,

rep.by its District Registrar and others 2.

Though notice is served on the unofficial

respondent, there is no representation on his behalf.

In Haji Mohammed Ahmed Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh and others(Supra), learned Single

Judge of this Court held as follows:

"The Supreme Court, in Thota Ganga Laxmi V. Government of A.P.(1), held that if any sale deed is required to be cancelled, the only remedy is by way of a civil suit for cancellation, but no cancellation deed can be unilaterally executed or registered. The Supreme Court, after referring to Rule 26(i)(k) of the Registrtion Rules, held that it is only when the earlier sale deed is cancelled by a competent court can a cancellation deed be registered that too after notice to the concerned parties; and unilateral cancellation of the sale dee,d s well as registration thereof, were wholly void, non-est and meaningless. The observation of the Supreme Court, aforementioned, made in the context of sale deeds would equally apply to unilateral cancellation of gift deeds also. Unilateral cancellation of the gift deed in the present case must there be and is declared to be void. It is made clear that this Order will not preclude the respondent from invoking the

2012(2) ALD 230

2012(2) ALT 728

jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court for cancellation of the subject gift deed".