DASHAMMA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims to be the sole and absolute owner of house property to an extent of 519 square yards bearing Municipal Nos.12-2-505/53 (part), 12-2-505/54, 12-2-505/55 (part) and 12-2-505/56 (part) on Plot Nos.53 (part), 54, 55 (part) and 56 (part) in Sy.Nos.14, 15, 367, 368, 384 to 387 of Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. Petitioner claims that herself and three others, who are adjacent owner pooled their properties and have entered into a Registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 27.07.2015 vide Document No.1582/2015 with the 5th respondent to develop residential complex with stilt + 5 floors. As per the development agreement-cum-GPA, owners to get 45% of the share of the fully developed property. According to the clauseXII (4) of the development agreement, the developer was required to complete construction and handover 45% of the constructed area to the owners within 24 months excluding the grace period of six months. In terms thereof, the time granted to the developer ended on 27.07.2017 with grace period extended to 27.01.2018. Petitioner alleges that developer has not shown any interest in developing the property. According to the petitioner, the building permission application submitted to GHMC was returned. But, 5th respondent did not comply with the objections and has not perused the matter. As per the development agreement, the time granted is over and other co-owners are not cooperating, petitioner caused legal notice on 16.07.2019 informing the 5th respondent that she seeks cancellation of development agreement to the extent of her share. At the time of initial development agreement, 5th respondent paid 15.00 lakhs as security deposit. Petitioner offered to return the money to the 5th respondent. As there was no response to the legal notice issued, left with no option petitioner submitted deed of cancellation of development agreement-cumGPA dated 27.07.2015 to the extent of her share. The SubRegistrar (4th respondent) refused to register the document vide his Refusal Order No.16/2019. The reason assigned for refusal was, the document was executed unilaterally to cancel the previously registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 27.07.2015 without signature of the developer, wherein the developer has substantial interest in the subject matter and, therefore, is contrary to Section 202 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. This refusal is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on following decisions:

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner, by placing reliance on Rule 26 (i)(k)(i) of the Telangana State Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ' the Rules'), contended that this Rule only deals with unilateral cancellation of concluded sale transaction and, therefore, is not applicable to the Development Agreement-cumGeneral Power of Attorney and thus it is permissible to go for unilateral cancellation of such agreement and, therefore, the reason assigned by the Sub-Registrar is ex facie illegal and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and authority and contrary to the mandate of the Rule.