WP/35282/2026 of Sri. Arumilli Ramakrishna Prasad Vs The State of Telangana on 15 October 2026

ORDER:

With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This Writ Petition is ltled This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in issuing Intimation of Refusal Order vide Refusal Order No'25 of 2024 dated 10.02 .2024 as arbitrary and illegal ald consequently direct the respondent No.3 to register artd release the Sale Deed (P.No.22 12024) dated 10.01.2024 presented by the petitioner - in respect of House constructed on Plot No.258, admeasuring 150 sq.yards or 125.4 sq.mtrs with an plinth arera of 200 sq.ft in Sy.No. 1003/part, roof covered with ACC, situated at Ameenpur Municipality and Mandal, Sanga Reddy district without reference to the Refusal Order dated lO 'O',2.2024.

3. Heard Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the pr:titroner arrd learned Government Pleader for Starnps and Registration appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the originalll' C. Bhoopal Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.258, admeasuring 150 sq.yards in Sy.No.1003/part, situated at Ameenpur Municipality and manda,l, Sanga Reddy district, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No.2993 of 2Ol2 dated O3.O3.2O12 and thereafter, the said Bhopal Reddy constructed a house on the said Plot No.258 and sold the same to the petitioner's vendor i.e., Janupula Ramchandra Reddy through a registered sale deed vide File No.Gll6aOS/2O22 dated 01.02.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner's vendor has oflered to sel1 the said property in favour of petitioner and the

--- petitioner has agreed to purchase the same for a valid consideration. Accordingly, sale deed dated 10.01.2024 was executed and presented before the respondent No.3, however, the respondent No.3 has refused to receive the sale deed vide Refusal Order No.25 of 2024. It is further submitted that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1631O of 2Ol9 and batch dated 1L.OL2O23 and also recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi u. The Sub-Registrarl and requested to pass similar order in this Writ Petition also. 5, Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. A perusal of the impugned refusal order dated 1O.O2.2O24, discloses that the registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner was refused on the following reasons: "As per the iastructions of Commissioner arrd Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Endorsement No. CIG MAIL/AR/2008, Dt: O2.O1.2008 unregistered and validated document cannot be accepted as a valid Link Document for registration. Further the C& IGRS through circular no. r2O25 SCC Online SC 740

.-

13450 l2OO7 dt: 2|.O7.2OOB instructed registering au*rority to verify link document before registration Registration of the document is refused as it is part of arl unauthorized layout ald is in vrolation of the Commissioner ald Inspector General, Registration and stamps Memo No' G2 I 257 I 20 t9 , Dt: 26 .O8 .2O2O &' 29 . 12 .2O2O . In view of the document beanng no. above the pendrng 2212024 has been refused the registration."

7. In this context, it is to extract the relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.1631O of 2Ol9 and batch dated ll.Ol.2023, which is as under

13. The power of the registering authority to refuse registration is on1y, if any of the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules made ttrereunder in particular Sections 19,20,21,22-A,34' 35 a-nd rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Regrstration Act, 1908, are existing in respect of aly such document presented for the registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the registering authorities have no authonty to refuse registration of a document on any other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which the impugned refusa-1 orders in all these batch of Writ Petitions are passed is that the link document shown in the respective documents is a validated arrd an unregistered document. By looking into a validity of the link document, the registering authority is indirectly verifying rvhether the executants of the respective documents are having va.lid title or not to execute the documents in question. As held in the above referred judgment in the case of Dr. Yadla Ramesh Naidu (1 supra), the registering authority is not entitLed to go into the title of the parties to the document. It is a settled law that the vendee under a document will not get a better -'itle than his vend.or and in case if vendor is not having a valid title over ih" p.op.tty which is the subject matter of a particular document, the vendee under ttle said document does not get any title over such property and mere registration of such document will not have al iffect on the property which is the subject matter of the said document.

14. As rightly conceded by the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, the registering authorities are not entitl;d to refuse regrstration of a document on mere ground that the title of the executants of the respectlve document is based

----- upon tlie validated document, though the same is compulsoniy registerable document cannot be accepted and such a ground is not available to the registering auttrorities to refuse registration of a document on that ground.

19. In the tight of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the respondent registenng authorities are not entitled to refuse registration of a document on the ground that the link document referred to in the respective document is a validated document or to refuse registration of such document by placing reliance on endorsement, dated O2.O7.2008, issued by the Commissioner ald inspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, ttre irrrpugned orders in the respective Writ Petitions are set aside and Writ Petitions are a-Ilowed with a further direction to the respondent registering authorities to receive the returned documents and to process the same subject to the condition of the said documents complying with the provisions of t}re Registration Act, 1908 arld the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In I(. Gopi's case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 'The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sa-le deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering o{Iicer cannot refuse to register ttre document if all the procedura.l compliances are made ald the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satished that the parties to the document are present before him arrd the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any tralsfer.

9. In view of the order in W.P.No.163 10 of 2019 and batch dated 1t.O1.2O23 as well as the Judgment of the Hon'ble - To, PM PB

Supreme Court in K. Gopi's case (1 supra) and in terms thereof, tl-ris Writ Petition is disposed of directing the re'spondent authorities to receive, register and release the document bearing P.No.22 of 2024 dated 10.01.2024 presented b5. the petitioner in respect of the subject property, without reference to the Intimation of Refusal No.25 of 2024 dated 1O.O2.2O24, subject to the condition that the said document complies w'ith the provisions of the Registration Act, i908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/.K.V.O.NARSI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER '1 . -he Principal Secretary Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The District Registrar, , Sanga Reddy District

3. The Sub - Registrar, Sanga Reddy (R.0),Sanga Reddy District

4. One CC to SRI S.SRIDHAR, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION, High Court for the State cf Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 6 Two CD Copies d.

HIGH COURT DATED: 1511012026

ORDER

WP.No.35282 of 2026 CC TODAY I I o S$ .s" ,) 1,, I o d ..i:,y' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS