WP/33292/2026 of Smt. Nagisetigari Navyasri Vs The State of Telangana on 5 October 2026

ORDER:

With the consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage Respondent No.3 in issurng the Intimation of Refusal vide Refusal Order dated 15.72.2023 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to register and release the Sale Deed P. 16312023 dated 14.02.2023 presented by the Petitioner in respect of House constructed on Plot No 224 admeasuring 150 Sq Yards w,ith an plinth area 200 Sq Feet in Sy.No.10O4/Part Roof covered with ACC situated at

2. This wrrt petition is lilcd declaring the action of

Ameenpur Municipality and Ameenpur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District without reference to Refusal Order dated 15 12 2023'

3. Heard Sri V.Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.S.Sravanthr, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearlng for the respondents and pertrsed the record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner entered into sale deed with his vendor Mr'Kohinoor Chandra Sekhar and executed a sale deed on 11 2'2023' Hou,ever, when the petitioner approached respondent No 3 for registration of the sale deed, the same was initia11l' kept pending vide document P.No.163 of 2023 dated 1422023, respondent has refused to register the sale deec1, which is who11y unsustainable. The learned counsel further submitted thar- the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No'16310 of 2019 and batch dated 1 I .1.2023 and also recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub-Registrarl and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition also' ' 2025 SCC Online SC 740

--

5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not disputed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner

6. A perusal ol the impugned Refusal Order dated 15.12.2023, discloses that the registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner was refused on the following reasons: "Regrstration of the document is refused as it is a part of arr unauthorized layout and is in violation of the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps Memo No.G2/257 /2019 dated 26.8.2020 ar,d 29.).2.2O2O. As per the instructions of the Commissioner and lnspector Genera.l of Registration and Stamps Endorsement No.CIG MAIL/AR/2008 dated 2.l.2OOA unrcgistcred and vahdatcd document cannot be accepted as a valid link document for registration, Further, tle C&IGRS through Memo No. l345Ol2OO7 dated 2I.7 .2O08 instructed regrstenng authority to venfy trtle document before registration".

7. In this context, it is to extract the relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.163 10 of 2019 and batch dated 11.O7.2023, which is as under: "13. The power of the regrstering authority to refuse registration is only, if any of the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules made U- thr:reunder in partrcular Sectons 19,20,2I,22 A,34,35 and rule 58 of the Telalgana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, are exsting in respect of any such document presented for the registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registratlon Act, 1908, the regrstering authonties have no authonty to refuse regrstratron of a document on any other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which the impugned refusal orders in all these batch of Wrlt Petitions are passed is that the link document shown tn the respective documents is a validated and art unreglstercd document. By looking into a validity of the link document, the registering authority is indrrectly vedfyng 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 regrstering authority is not entitled 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 title than his vendor ar.d in case if vendor is not having a vahd title over the property which rs the subject matter of a parti.cular document, the vendee under the said document does not get arry title over such property and mere registration of such document wrll not have al 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 reglstratlon of a document on mere ground that the title of the executants of the respective document rs based upon the va.lidated document, though the same is compulsorily regi.sterable document cannot be accepted ald such a ground is not avalable to the registering authorities to refuse registration of a document on th at gror-r nd. 1!), In the light 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 rs a va-lidated document or to refuse reg1stration of such document by placing reliance on endorsement, dated 02.01.2008, issued b-v thc Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly. the impugned orders in the respectivc Writ Petitions are set aside and Writ Petitrons are allowed 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 complyrng with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899."

8. In K. Gopi'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 executart has arly title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no tit1e, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural. compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are pard. We may note here that under tl.e scheme o[ the 1908 Act. it is not the function of the Sub Registrar or Registerrng Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the propcrty whrch hc is seeking to trarsfcr. Once the registering authority is satrsfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to mak.ing procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. 'l'he execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, rf any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or - in,-erest in the property, the registcred document cannot effect ary trzrns[er. ''

9. In vieu, of the above, following the judgment of the To, Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub Registrar (supra) and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.163 1O of 2Ol9 and batch dated 11.1 .2023 and in terms thereof, this wnt petrtlon 1S drsposed ol, directing the respondent authoritres to receive, register and release the document bearing P No.163/2023 presented b1' the petitioner in respect of the subject propertv, without reference to the Intimation of RefrLsal Order dated 15.12.2023, subject to the condition that the said document compiies with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending shall stand clos,:d. There shall be no order as to costs SD/.P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER

1. The 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 Distriot'

4. The Commissioner and lnspector General Registration and Stamps, Telangana, Hyderabad

5. One CC to SRI V.YADU KRISHNA SAINATH, Advocate IOPUCI

6. T,rvo CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies k

HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED: 0511012026

ORDER

WP.No.33292 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /1.. lrw r I 1? i ST4r$ [T 2026 13 0 :) () L) \0l!, z {.l.