Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D V Radha Krishna vs State Of Ap on 30 July, 2020
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.11550 of 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in executing the deed of revocation of gift settlement dated 28.01.2002 unilaterally as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, set aside the same i.e., deed of revocation of gift settlement dated 28.01.2002.
It is the case of the petitioner that his father executed a gift settlement deed in his favour on 11.05.2001 therein gifted an extent of 233.33 square yards house site situated at Maddilapalem Village, Survey No.12, T.P.No.46/71 of Plot No.63, along with RCC house with a plinth area of 1000 SSFT with the permission of Visakhapatnam Municipality vide their B.A.No.301/73 dated 18.01.1974. The gift settlement deed was accepted by the petitioner and it is an unconditional gift settlement deed registered with the Joint Sub-Registrar, Visakhapatnam on 11.05.2001.
From the date of execution of the gift settlement deed, dated 11.05.2001, the petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. While the matter stood thus, the Joint Sub-Registrar, Visakhapatnam, registered a deed of revocation of gift dated 28.01.2002 unilaterally, though gift settlement deed dated 11.05.2001 is unconditional and it cannot be revoked/cancelled. The respondents have no power or authority to cancel or revoke the gift settlement deed. Even his father has no -2- power or authority to revoke or cancel the gift deed. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the authority of the second respondent in registration of the revocation deed dated 28.01.2002 and thereby the registration of deed is illegal and arbitrary and requested to pass appropriate orders.
Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions. At the stage of admission, it is appropriate to dispose of the same in view of the issue involved in this petition.
Undisputedly, a gift deed was executed by father of the petitioner on 11.05.2001 donating land of an extent of Ac.233.33 square yards along with house constructed therein. However, father of the petitioner D.V.N.Gupta executed a deed of revocation of gift settlement and registration of the same by the second respondent is now questioned before this Court. Both gift deed and revocation deed were executed by father of the petitioner, when the revocation deed is presented before the Registrar, his duty is to register, if satisfies the requirement for registration of the document. Most curiously, father of the petitioner was not impleaded as a party this petition, who is no more, and legal heirs or successors of interest in the property were not impleaded though he is contending that the third parties claiming the property. Even assuming for a movement that his father is not competent to revoke the gift deed as no conditions were imposed, such issue can be decided by a competent Civil Court not by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court cannot decide such disputed questions while exercising power of judicial review.
-3-
Revocation deed was registered on 28.01.2002. Almost 18 years have been elapsed from the date of registration and the registration deed of revocation of gift deed itself is a notice to the petitioner in view of Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, there are laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court and on this ground also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
As the issue involved in this matter is regarding title to the property based on gift deed and revocation deed, this Court cannot decide the same and consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed both on the ground of limited jurisdiction and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the competent Court for appropriate relief, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 30.07.2020 Ivd -4- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.11550 of 2020 Date: 30.07.2020 Ivd