Smt. Giraka Malleswari vs The District Registrar, Ranga ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4335 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                   I.A.No.1 of 2017 in/& W.A.No. 1899 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard Mr. Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned

Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 6.

2. At the outset, we may mention that there is delay of 84 days

in filing the related writ appeal. I.A.No.1 of 2017 has been filed for

condoning the delay wherein notice was issued on 14.06.2019.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due

consideration, the delay is condoned.

4. In so far the appeal is concerned, the same is directed against

the order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge

disposing of W.P.No.13863 of 2009 filed by the appellant as the

petitioner.

::2::

5. The related writ petition was filed for setting aside deeds of

cancellation of sale deeds and gift settlement deeds unilaterally by

the executants. Learned Single Judge held that the writ petition was

not maintainable as the appellant had remedy of taking recourse to

civil proceedings. It was pointed out that under Section 31 of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963, appellant had the remedy of moving the

civil Court.

6. Identical issue came up before this Court in W.A.No.1472 of

2017 (Govindram Agarwal v. Commissioner, Stamps and

Registration), which was dismissed on 28.07.2022. In the said

order, this Court held as follows:

"Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1 a writ petition is maintainable against unilateral cancellation of development agreement.

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

(2010) 15 SCC 207 ::3::

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 Sayamma2 held that writ petition is not maintainable against cancellation of an instrument and the aggrieved person has to approach the civil Court. This decision came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh3 where the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court examined Thota Ganga Laxmi's 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.

7. That being the position and following the above decision, we

are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

AIR 2007 AP 57

(2016) 10 SCC 767 ::4::

8. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2017 is disposed of and the writ

appeal is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

dismissed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 26.08.2022 LUR