IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17564 of 2010 HARI SHANKAR PRASAD,son of late Bajrang Singh M/s. Shankar Developer sole propriety firm having his its office at Road No.1, Shivpuri, District- Patna, at present resident of Road No.18, South Rajiv Nagar, P.S. Digha, District- Patna…. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Inspector General of Registrar Office, Patna, Bihar. 2. The District Registrar, At District Registration Office, Patna Sadar, Patna. 3. Smt. Urmila Devi, w/o late Amit Kumar Yadav @ Jailer Roy 4. Miss Nilema Kumari 5. Miss Puja Kumari 6. Miss Rinku Kumari 7. Miss Bharti Kumari All are the minor daughters of Smt. Urmila Devi, who is natural guardian 8. Master Vikky Kumar minor s/o Urmila Devi, who is a mother and natural guardian. 9. Smt. Sunayana Devi, w/o late Shankar Roy 10.Vijay Kumar 11.Anay Kumar. All are minor sons of Sunaina Devi, who is the natural guardian. Resident of Mohalla- Mahesh nagar, P.S. Patliputra, District-Patna. 12. The Executive Officer, Patna Nagar Nigam, Patna,Dist- Patna. ------- 2. 27.10.2010 The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing a deed of cancellation dated 5.7.2010 executed by respondent Nos. 3 and 9 for cancellation of deeds of agreement dated 20.10.2006 and 13.3.2008 respectively for development of the land and the construction of multi storied building on the land of plot No.1409, Jari No.5123, Khata No.229 area (5+3) 8 kathas land situated in Mainpura Mahesh Nagar, P.S. Patliputra, District- Patna. The further prayer is to quash the registration of the deed of cancellation and also for certain declaration as to the effect of the deed of cancellation. - 2 - In the writ jurisdiction of this Court, no such issue of quashing a deed of cancellation of a development agreement entered into between private parties can be the subject matter of consideration nor this Court would declare the effect of any such cancellation deed in its writ jurisdiction. So far as the quashing of the registration by the registration authorities of Patna is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any provision of law under which the respondent registration authorities have acted illegally in registering the deed of cancellation dated 5.7.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely on Explanation II to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sections 17 and 47 of the Registration Act. The said provisions do not at all support his case in this regard. In the above circumstances there being no merit in the writ application it is accordingly, dismissed. However, any observation made by this Court in this order shall not affect the right of the petitioner in duly constituted proceedings before the Civil Court. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )