C.Vidya Sagar vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5089 Tel

          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

(2010) 15 SCC 207

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

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