"9. Now, the contention put forth by the learned Additional Government Pleader, is that Sec.32-A of the Registration Act was amended only on 28.6.2006; that it could not be given retrospective effect, but only prospective effect, and under the circumstances, the registration of the cancellation deed by the first respondent on 25.8.2005, which was prior to the amendment, cannot now be challenged. This contention, though attractive at the first instance, cannot be countenanced in law for the reason that though the amendment has been made on 28.6.2006, this Court is of the considered opinion that once there was an agreement entered into between the parties, and it has also been registered on 23.5.2005, now it has been unilaterally cancelled at the instance of one party even without notice, which would suffice to quash the same. If a bilateral agreement which was placed by the parties for registration, is allowed to be cancelled by way of registration of another document namely deed of cancellation, even without the other party being put on notice, will be not only against the principles of law, but also against the principles of natural justice. Under the circumstances, such an act cannot have a sanction in law. Hence, the cancellation of the agreement dated 23.5.2005, by the first respondent, Sub Registry, has got to be necessarily quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed, and this Writ Petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed."
