WP/26713/2006 of Bayana Bhanu Mydhily, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 December 2006

ORDER:

The petitioner alleges that she is the owner of Plot bearing No.21situated in Revenue Ward No.16 of Machavaram, Vijayawada. Shealleges that the original document of this property bearing DocumentNo.1615/1991 was provided as collateral security to Bank of India,Guntur, under equitable mortgage and the said Bank initiatedproceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh. It isthe case of the petitioner that the daughter of the second respondent,who is an I.A.S.Officer, approached her to purchase the property in thename of the second respondent, and the second respondent enteredinto a Memorandum of Understanding on 06.09.2006 atVisakhapatnam at the Tribunal. It is also alleged that the saleconsideration was agreed for Rs.41 lakhs and in the sale deed bearingDocument No.3321/2006 dated 25.09.2006, the second respondentintended to show only Rs.31 lakhs and executed an affidavit havingknowledge of the prior agreement of sale holder. As per the covenantsin the sale deed, the purchaser shall obtain the original link documentsfrom the Bank by paying Rs.10 lakhs, but the second respondentrequested the petitioner to collect the documents and promised to paythe amount later. The petitioner collected the documents, but shealleges that the second respondent failed to pay the amount to her,instead, lodged a complaint with the Police using her daughter’s position, and played fraud.

The petitioner intended to cancel the sale deed bearingdocument No.3321/2006, dated 25.09.2006, as the consideration wasnot paid to her and a fraud was played by the second respondent, butthe first respondent refused to receive the cancellation and requestedthe petitioner to make a representation, and the same was rejectedvide order dated 12.12.2006, aggrieved by which, the present WritPetition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of thefirst respondent in not receiving and registering the cancellation deedas illegal and arbitrary.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-A), thisCourt is of considered opinion that a Writ Petition is not maintainable. A direction to the registering authority to cancel a registered documentregistered earlier cannot be granted. I n Property Association of Baptist Churches v. Sub Registrar, Jangoan[[1]], this Courtconsidered this question. After referring to the provisions of Part-XI ofthe Registration Act, 1908, as well as Rule 58 of the Andhra PradeshRules under the Registration Act, 1908, this Court observed as under.

A reading of the above provisions would show that thepower of the registering officer is limited to enquire into thevalidity of the document brought to him for registration or toenquiry into any written or verbal protest against theregistration of a document based on the ground that theexecuting party has no right to execute the document. Thelimited power of the registering officer to enquire intoobjections that the executing party had no right to executedocument get extinguished the moment the document isregistered. No such power inheres in the registering officer orthe District Registrar to cancel the sale deed, unless anotherdocument for cancellation is presented with proper stampduty and registration charges. A party aggrieved by aregistered document on conveyance has to file civil suitseeking appropriate declaration under Section 34 of theSpecific Relief Act, read with Article 59 of the Schedule underthe Limitation Act 1963 (Act 36 of 1963). The Writ Petition isnot a proper remedy.

The judgment in Property Association of Baptist Churches

The judgment in Property Association of Baptist Churches v. Sub Registrar, Jangoan (supra), was approved by the DivisionBench in W.A.No.1486 of 2004 dated 11.10.2004, which was noticedby a Full Bench of this Court in Yanala Malleshwari v. AnanthulaSayamma[[2]]. Therefore, this Writ Petition is misconceived. If so advised, the petitioner may file appropriate suit seeking declarationunder Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In this Writ Petitionno relief can be granted.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

22.12.2006vs

____________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

[1]2004(1) ALT 174[2]2006(6) ALT 523 (F.B)