THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.23479 of 2010 DT.28.10.2010 Between: Maradani Srinivasa Prabhu and another … Petitioners And The District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri C.Suman For Sri S.Srinivas Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4 : Mr.M.Ganga Rao Counsel for respondent No.5 : AGP for Fisheries The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 16.09.2010, of respondent No.1, whereby he has directed annulment of various registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners. I have heard Sri C.Sumon, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri M.Ganga Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. In pursuance of a scheme evolved by respondent No.4 called ‘Scheme for Purchase of Agricultural Lands for Scheduled Caste Landless Agriculture Labour Families’, the vendors of the petitioners were identified as some of the beneficiaries in respect of an extent of Acs.13.73 cents in R.S.Nos.625 and 626/1 of Babukhangudem, H/o Jalipudi Village, Eluru Mandal. In all, 27 sale deeds were executed covering an extent of Acs.13.73 cents on 6th, 7th and 8th of September, 1994. Later on, the beneficiaries have executed agreements of sale with one Gadi Raju Narayana Raju for the entire extent of Acs.13.73 cents for a total consideration of Rs.11,67,050/- and the beneficiaries have repaid the loan amount to respondent No.4 from out of the sale consideration received by them. Thereafter, the petitioners have purchased the entire extent through registered sale deeds executed by the beneficiaries on 24th, 25th, 26th, and 28th of May, 1999. After the said purchase, the petitioners are stated to have converted the land into fish ponds. The impugned order has been passed by respondent No.1 on the ground that the beneficiaries have alienated the properties in violation of the Scheme. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.1 cannot unilaterally annul the registered sale deeds in view of Rule 26(k)(i) of the A.P.Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908. Rule 26(k)(i) was inserted by the State of A.P. through A.P.Gazette, dated 29.11.2006. It is useful to extract this provision hereunder: “26(k)(i) The registrating officer shall ensure at the time of presentation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered sale 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; Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the execution of cancellation deeds by executant and claimant parties to the previously registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him if the cancellation deed is executed by a Civil Judge or a Government Officer competent to execute Government orders declaring the properties contained in the previously registered conveyance on sale to be Government or Assigned or Endowment lands or properties not registerable by any provision of law.” From the above re-produced provision, it is evident that for cancellation of deeds of previously registered sale deed of conveyances on sale, the cancellation deeds executed by the executants and the claimant parties to the previously registered conveyances on sale and such cancellation deed accompanied by declaration showing mutual consent or orders of a competent Civil Court or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale, shall be in existence. Such execution by executant and claimant parties to the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale is dispensed with, if the cancellation deed is executed by a Civil Judge or a Government Officer competent to execute Government Orders declaring properties contained in the previously registered conveyance on sale to be of Government or Assigned or Endowment lands or properties not registerable by any provision of law. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that any of the conditions envisaged by the above noted Rule are satisfied for cancellation of the previous registered deed of conveyances without such deeds being executed by all the executant and claimant parties. This Court had an occasion to deal with the scope of the power of cancellation of the registered conveyances in K.V.Sudha Rani and others v. The Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalgiri Urban Development Authority (VGTM-UDA), Vijayawada, rep.by its Vice- Chairman and others[1], wherein it is inter alia held as under: “28. The above analysis of the legal provisions makes it clear that a person, who seeks cancellation of a registered document, has two remedies available under law. They are: (1) to seek invalidation of the registered sale deed by approaching the competent court of law under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; or (2) to seek cancellation of registered document by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Act. Except these two remedies, no person or authority has the right to unilaterally invalidate a registered sale deed on any ground. Undisputedly, the Vice- Chairman was rest content by passing the impugned orders and he has not availed either of the above-mentioned two remedies either before or after the amendment of the Rules. It is, therefore, beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the respondent-authority or its Vice-Chairman to treat the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners as null and void and purport to cancel the same. Until and unless the competent authority, viz., the Registering Authority, under Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules or the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction exercises its powers/jurisdiction and cancels the sale deeds, the sales made in favour of the petitioners remain unaffected.” For the afore-mentioned reasons, the impugned order directing unilateral annulment of the registered sale deeds cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly quashed. This order, however, does not preclude the respondents from initiating appropriate action in accordance with law for annulment/cancellation of registered sale deeds. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the order, dated 21.09.2010, passed in W.P.M.P.No.30055 of 2010 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.30055 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 28.10.2010. VGB [1] 2008(3) ALT 760