IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NOs.41349 OF 2011 & 3151-3153 OF 2012 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN:
SRI P.AROGHYA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O. LATE PAPANNA R/AT KUMBARNAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI G.A.VISWANATHA REDDY, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE SUB-REGISTRAR ANEKAL ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT 3. K.MOHINDHAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR REDDY R/AT NO.14/382 NEW KAINAKATTU STREET CHITTOOR, ANDRA PRADESH 4. S. VINOD CHANDER AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O. KRISHNA MURTHY R/AT NO.3, II FLOOR RUNDAVAN COMPLEX 20TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE BTM LAYOUT BANGALORE – 560 068 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI S.SUDARSHAN REDDY, ADV., FOR R3; NOTICE TO R-4, HELD SUFFICIENT V/O.DT.16.12.2014) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO CANCEL THE REGISTERED GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF R3 AND R4 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE ANN-E ON THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED FOR CANCELLATION OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking that the respondent No.2 be directed to cancel the registered General Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of the petition schedule property, by taking note of the legal notice said to have been issued by the petitioner for canceling the General Power of Attorney.
2. The fact that the petitioner has executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the same has been registered in the office of the respondent No.2/Sub-Registrar is not in dispute. However, the petitioner contends that the development of the property has not taken place in the manner as has been envisaged through the agreement between the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4. In that view General Power of Attorney executed in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 has become redundant and therefore, the same is to be cancelled. The petitioner in that regard is stated to have got issued a notice dated 22.03.2011 to respondent Nos.3 and 4 revoking the General Power of Attorney executed in their favour. It is in that light, the petitioner contends that the registration of the General Power of Attorney is required to be cancelled and therefore, a direction be issued in this regard.
3. The learned Government Advocate would point out that except for contending that the petitioner has revoked General Power of Attorney through the notice dated 22.03.2011, no other document has been presented by the petitioner to the office of the respondent No.2 seeking for registration. In that light, it is pointed out that when a document to create certain right in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 has been registered, cancellation of the registration without any other documents, only on request being made by the petitioner would not arise. If a proper document is produced for registration, the same will be considered in accordance with law by respondent No.2.
4. Having taken note of rival contentions and a perusal of writ papers would disclose that the General Power of Attorney is at Annexure-E to the petition. A perusal of the same would disclose that the same has been registered in view of the General Power of Attorney being executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4. In any event, to that extent there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioner no doubt, has got issued a notice dated 22.03.2011 revoking the Power of Attorney. The fact as to whether the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have accepted such revocation and in that light whether the earlier registration of the document made in the presence of respondent Nos.3 and 4 could be cancelled without their consent is the position be taken note. In that regard, though the petitioner has relied on a copy of deed of cancellation at Annexure-G, there is no document available on record to indicate as to whether respondent Nos.3 and 4 have consented to the same and as to whether the document of such nature has been produced before respondent No.2 seeking for registration in that regard. Therefore, in that circumstance, the prayer as sought in the petitions to cancel General Power of Attorney unilaterally by respondent No.2 would not arise and the same cannot be granted in a writ petition of the present nature.
5. Though, that be the position, if the petitioner presents any other documents to the office of respondent No.2 seeking registration in the nature of revocation of earlier document, the respondent No.2 shall examine the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. If an order to be passed by respondent No.2 is contrary to the case which has been put forth by the petitioner and against the interest of the petitioner and if the petitioner has grievance in that regard with regard to the refusal to register, the petitioner may in that event avail the remedy of an appeal that is available under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908.
In that view of the matter, reserving such liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law, these petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ