WP/35263/2026 of Kanagala Ravindhar 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 fiied This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in issuing Intimation of Refusal Order vide Refusal Order No.23 of 2024 dated 10.02 .2024 as arbitrary and il1ega1 and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to register and release the Sale Deed (P.No.2O /2024\ dated 10.01.2024 presented by the petitioner in respect of House constructed on Plot No.248, admeasuring -

150 sq.lrards or 125.4 sq.mtrs with an plinth area 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 1.O.O2.2024.

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

4. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the originally C. Bhoopa-l Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.248, admeasuring 150 sq.yards situated at Ameenpur Municipa-lity and Mandal, Sanga Reddy district, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No.2993 of 2Ol2 dated 03.03.2012 and thereafter, the said Bhopal Reddy constructed a house on the said Plot No.248 and sold the same to the petitioner's vendor i.e., Janupula Ramchandra through a registered sale deed vide File No.G7 16408/2022 dated O1.02.2023. 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 ,-

10. I.2024 was executed ald presented before the respondent No.3, however, the respondent No.3 has refused to receive the sale deed vide Refusal Order No. 23 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.163 1O of 2Ol9 and batch dated 11.01.2023 and also recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi u. The Sub-Reglstrarl 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 10.02.2024, discloses that the registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner was refused on the following reasons: "As per the instructions of the Commissioner and Inspector Genera-l of Registration on and Stamps Endorsement No. CIG MAIL/AR/2008, Dt: 02.O1.2008 unregistered and validated document cannot be accepted Further the C& IGRS through circular no. as a valid Link Document for registration. t345O l2OO7 dt: 27.07 .2OO8 instructed registering authority to verify link document before registration. 12025 SCC Online SC 740

.-

Registration of the document is refused as it is part of al unauthorized layout ald is in violation of the Commissioner and inspector Genera-l, Registration ald stamps llemo No. G2 I 257 I 20 t9 , Dt: 26 .OB .2O2o 29 . 12 .2020 . In view of the above the pending document bearing r.o. 20 12024 has been refused the registration." 7, In this context, it is to extract the relevant portion of the or:der in W.P.No.1631O of 2Ol9 and batch dated ll.Ol.2o23, which is as under:

13. The porver 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 thereunder rn particular Sections )'9, 20, 21,22-A, 34, 35 and rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration 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 Registralion Act, 1908, the registering auttrorities have no authority to refuse registration of a document on any other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which the impugned refusal orders in a.1l these batch of Writ Petitions are passed is that the link document shown in the respective documents is a validated and an unregistered document. By looking into a validity of the link document, the registering authority is indirectly verifying whether the executants of the respective documents are having valid 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 setfled law tllat the vendee under a document will not get a better titie than his vendor ald in case if vendor is not having a va-lid title over the property which is the subject matter of a particular document, the vendee under tl.e said document does not get arry title over such property and mere registration of such document will not have an effect on the property which is the subject matter of the said document. i4. As rightly conceded by the learned Government Pleader for Stamps ald Registralion, the reglstering authorities ale not entitled to refuse registration of a document on mere ground that the trtle of the executants of the respective document is based upon t1-re validated document, though the same is compulsorily registerable document cannot be accepted and such a ground is -a-

not available to the registering authorities to refuse registration of a document on that ground.

19. In the light of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the respondent registering authodties 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 ttre Cornmissioner and Inspector Genera-l of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the respective Writ Pelitions are set aside and Writ Petitions are allowed with a further direction to the respondent registenng authorities to receive the returned documents and to process the same subject to the condition of the said documents complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

8. In K.Gopl's case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The regrstering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has aly title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a lald in respect of which he has no tifle, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessar-y 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 satisfred that the parties to the document are present before him ald the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliarrces 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 arry transfer.

9. In view of the order in W.P.No.1631O of 20i9 and batch dated 11.01.2023 as ivell as the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi's case (I supra) and in terms (

- \i thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to receive, register ancl release the document bearing P.No.2O 12024 dated 1O.O1.2C24 presented b,y the petitioner in respect of the subject property, without reference to the Intimation of Refusa-l No.23 of 2024 dated 1{l .O2 .2024 , subj ect to the condition that the said document complies u'ith the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 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 FFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, stamps and Registration Department, secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Registrar, Sanga Reddy District.

3. The Sub - Registrar, Sianga Reddy (R.O), Sanga Reddy D strict'

4. One CC to SRI S.SRIDHAR, Advocate [OPUC] 5TwoCCstoGPFORSTAMPSANDREGISTRATION,HighCourtforthe State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies To, PMK P s l/

HIGH COURT DATED: 1511012026 CC TODAY

ORDER

WP.No.35263 of 2026 * ri CIH rl: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a\,L .q, .) ,+ # {t! \* L l,