THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1757 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners executed an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri Anup Kumar Roy and Md.Mustafa Ali, on 22-12-2006. It is in relation to Ac.7.05 guntas of land in Sy.No.1 of Dargah Hussain Shawali Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Alleging that the persons, in whose favour the G.P.A was executed, failed to pay the balance of consideration, within the stipulated time, the petitioners intend to cancel the agreement of sale- cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 22-12-2006. For this purpose, the petitioners executed a document on 01-01-2009, and presented the same for registration before the 1st respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent is refusing to admit the deed of cancellation dated 01-01-2009, and when they presented the document for registration, the 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 22-01-2009, stating that in view of the proceedings dated 25-08-2008, issued by the 2nd respondent, the deed of cancellation cannot be registered. The petitioners challenge the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Some uncertainty prevailed, as to whether a document registered under the relevant provisions of law, can be unilaterally cancelled by one of the parties, and such cancellation deed can be registered without reference to the other party. Addition of Rule 26-K to the A.P. Registration Rules, framed under the Registration Act, brought an end to this controversy. The amended Rule insists that the document of cancellation of a sale, or allied transaction cannot be registered without the consent of the other party. What is executed by the petitioners on 22-12-2006 is not a G.P.A-simplicitor. It is an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney. The persons, who figured as the second party to the document, have their own interest in the property, and, in fact, have derived right, as vendees. Though it is permissible for a G.P.A- simplicitor to be revoked by the principal, it is not so in the case of G.P.As, coupled with interest. Further, it is not as if the petitioners would not have any remedy. The Specific Relief Act provides for the relief of cancellation of documents. The Court, in which the suit is filed, would have an occasion to examine the rights and obligations of the concerned parties. Therefore, the view taken by the 1st respondent cannot be said to be without basis. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out the remedy by filing a suit. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt.04-02-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO