WP/35309/2026 of Molakalapalli Han Babu 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 filed This writ petition is filed d.eclaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in issuing Intimation of Refusal Order vide Refusal Order No'266 of 2023 dated 15. 12 .2023 as arbitrary and illega-l ard consequently direct the respondent No.3 to register and release the SaIe Deed (P.No.175 l2O23l dated 15.03.2023 presented by the petitioner -

in respect of House constructed on Plot No'246' admeasurrng 150 sq.yards or 125.4 sq.mtrs rvith al plinth area of 200 sq'ft in Sy.No.1OO3/part, roof covered with ACC, situated at Ameenpur Municipality and Mandal, Sanga Reddy district witlrout reference to the Refusal Order dated 15 '12 '2023 '

3. Heard Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petr.tioner ald learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the originally C. Bhoopal Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.246, admeasuring 150 sq'yards in Sy.No.1003/part, situated at Ameenpur Municipality and mandal, Sanga Reddy district, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No'2993 of 2Ol2 dated O3.O3.2OI2 and thereafter, the said Bhopal Reddy constructed a house on the said Plot No'246 and sold the same to the petitioner's vendor i.e., Janupula Ramchandra Reddy through a registered sale deed vide File No'G1. 1640812022 dated OI .O2.2O23. Thereafter, the petitioner's vendor has offered to sell the said property in favour of petitioner and the

petitioner has agreed to purchase the same for a valid consideration. Accordingly, sale deed dated 15.03.2023 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.266 of 2023. 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 2OI9 and batch dated 11.01.2023 and also recent Judgment of the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in K.Gopi a. The Sub-Registrart 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 Iearned counsel for the petitioner.

6. A perusal of the impugned refusal order dated 75.12.2023, discloses that the registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner was refused on the following reasons: "Registration of the document is refused as it is part of an unauthorized layout and is in violation of the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration ald stamps Memo No. G2/257 /2019, Dt: 26.08.2O2O &,29.12.2O2O. t2025 SCC Online SC 740

In view of the above the pending document bearing no' 77512023 has been refused the registration and also as per the instructions of the Commissioner and Inspector Genera'l of Registration ared Endorsement No CIG MAIL/AR l2OOa' Dt Starnps O2.Ol.2OOB unregistered and validated document cannot be accepted as a valid Link Document for registration Further the C& IGi<S through circular rLo. 73450 l2OO7 dt: 21 'O7 '2OO8 instructed registering authority to verify link document before registration I therefore refuse registration ofthe document under section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908."

7. In this context, it is to extract the reievalt portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 1l'01'2023, which is as under:

13. The power of the registering authority to refuse registration is only, ii any of the grounds or objections that are enumerated undei the provisions ofthe Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules made thereunder in particular Sections 19' 20,21' 22-A,34' 35 and rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908. are existing in respect of any such document presented for the registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumeiated under t1.e provisions of the Regrstration Act, 1908, the registering authorities have no authority to refuse registraLon of a document on arry other ground. As already noled above, the ground on which the impugned refusal orders in all these batch of Writ Petltions are passed rs that the tnk document shown in the respective documents is a validated and arl unreglstered document. By looking into a validity cf the link document, the registering authority is indirectly verifying whether the executants of the respective documents a-re hawing va-lld 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 authonty is not entided to go into the title of the parties to the document. It is a settled 1aw that the vendee under a document will not get a better trtle than his vendor ald in case if vendor is not having a valid title over tJ.e property whrch is the subject matter of a particular document, the vendee under the said document does not get any title over such property and mere registration of such document wrl1 not have an effect 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 -

entitled to refuse registration of a document on mere ground that the title of the executants of the respective document is based upon the va-lidated document, though the same is compulsorily registerable document cannot be accepted and such a ground is not available to the registering authorities to refuse registration of a document on that ground.

19. In the iight of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the respondent registering 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 relialce on endorsement, dated 02.01.2008, issued by the Commissioner ald lnspector General of Stamps and Regrstration. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the respective Writ Petitions are set aside and Writ Petitions are allowed with a further direction to tl.e respondent registering authorities to receive the returned documents arrd to process the same subject to the condition of the said documents complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the frdian Stamp Act, 1899.

8. ln K.Gopi's case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The registering offrcer is not concerned with the title held by the executalt. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a iand in respect of which he has no litle, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessa-ry 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 titie to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him ald the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural complialces as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of tralsferring only those rights, if arly, that tJ:e executalt possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document ca;rnot effect any transfer.

9. In view of the order in W.P.No.1631O of 2019 and batch dated 17.01.2023 as well as the Judgment of the Honble -

Supreme Court in K. Gopi's case (1 supra) and in terms thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to receive, register and release the document bearing P.No.175 of 2023 dated 15.03.2023 presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property, without reference to the Intimation of Refusa-l No.266 of 2023 dated 15.72.2023, subject to the condition that the said document complies with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Starnp Act, 1899. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending sha,ll stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/.K.V.O.NARSI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// u-,,tr To, SEC OFFICER The Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The District Registrar, Sanga Reddy District. The Sub - Registrar, Sanga Reddy (R.O), Sanga Reddy District. One CC to SRI S. SRIDHAR, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION, High Court for the State o{ Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies BN PB

o d

CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 1511012026

ORDER

WP.No.35309 of 2026 (.) \ E' *o L., \ ai DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS $.$ o u- 4 cr+t +