Telangana High Court
Sri Govindram Agarwal vs Commissioner Stamps Regi And 2 Others on 28 July, 2022
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT APPEAL No.1472 of 2017
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mr. M.Papa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. None has appeared for respondent No.3.
2. This appeal assails the final order dated 29.06.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1283 of 2008.
3. The order dated 29.06.2017 reads as under:
"The 3rd respondent, who is the owner and purchaser of land in an extent of Ac.6-08 guntas in Sy.Nos.480, 482/2, 483 and 467 situated at Maheswaram, had entered into a development agreement with the petitioner on 27.1.2007. The registered GPA was executed coupled with the said development agreement being document No.2168 of 2007, dated 3.2.2007 in respect of Ac.1-13 guntas from out of the said total land. In addition to the said registered document, there have been several written 2 confirmations from the 3rd respondent. It was agreed that the development work shall be completed within five months, which commenced from 28.3.2007. In view of the nature of the land being agricultural, the petitioner was required to deposit certain amounts and accordingly, the petitioner has deposited the same. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted conversion certificate. When the petitioner was waiting for release of the lay out, an intimation was received from the 2nd respondent stating that the 3rd respondent has unilaterally cancelled the development agreement-cum- registered GPA by executing a cancellation deed dated 11.1.2008. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
The issue with regard to unilateral cancellation of a sale deed was considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma (AIR 2007 AP 57) and held that the writ petition is not maintainable for cancellation of an instrument which purports to nullify a sale deed and the person aggrieved has to approach the Civil Court. The said Full Bench decision of this Court was referred in a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh ((2016) 10 SCC 767), with approval.
In view of the same, the present writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the deed of cancellation in a competent Civil Court, if he is so advised.
No costs."
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi 3 v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1 a writ petition is maintainable against unilateral cancellation of development agreement.
5. We have carefully gone through the decision of the Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi's case (supra). We do not find any ratio laid down in the said decision that against unilateral cancellation of development agreement by a private party, aggrieved party has the remedy of filing writ petition.
6. On the contrary, as pointed out by learned Single Judge, a Full Bench of this Court in Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma2 held that writ petition is not maintainable against cancellation of an instrument and the aggrieved person has to approach the civil Court. This decision came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh3 where the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court examined Thota Ganga Laxmi's case (supra). Supreme Court 1 (2010) 15 SCC 207 2 AIR 2007 AP 57 3 (2016) 10 SCC 767 4 upheld the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition by giving liberty to the appellant to pursue his statutory remedy.
7. Thus on due consideration, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. No case for interference is made out.
8. Writ appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J 28.07.2022 vs