WP/33422/2026 of Smt. Lavanya Choudari Vs The State of Telangana on 5 October 2026

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The District Registrar, Sanga Reddy Diskict.

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

4. The Commissioner and lnspector General Registration and Stamps, Telangana, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Nlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No. 3 in issuing the lntimation of Refusal vide Refusal Order dated 15.12.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP. No. 27899 of 2026 and set- aside the same and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to register and release the Sale Deed(P10412023) dated 16.02.2023 presented by the Petitioner in respect of House constructed on Plot No. 223, admeasuring 150 Sq. Yards or 125.4

Sq. Meters with an plinth area 200 Sq. Feet, in Sy. No. 1OO4lPan, Roof covered with ACC, situated at Ameenpur Municipality and Ameenpur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District without reference to Refusal Order dated 15.12.2023. l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to regisjer and Lrelease the Sale Deed (P 1041 2023) daled 16.02.2023 presented by the Petitioner in respect of House constructed on Plot No. 223, adnreasuring 150 Sq. Yards or 125.4 Sq. Meters with an plrnth area 200 Sq. Feet, in Sy. No. 1004/Part, Roof covered with ACC, situated at Ameenpur Municipality and Ameenpur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District without reference to Refusal Order dated 15.12.2023 forthwith pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.YADU KRISHNA SAINATH Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.33422 OF 2o26 CNR No. HBHCO1O6Z9462O26 sth ocToBER,2026. Between: Smt. Lavanya Choudari . . . Petitioner The State of Telalgana T"p. Uy its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad ana iS; others ORDE R: ... Respondents With the con sen t of both parties, this Writ petition is taken up for disposal at the aclmission stage.

2. This writ petition is filed declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in issuing the Intimation of Refusal vide Refusal Order dated 15.12.2023 as arbitrar5z and illegal and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to regrster and release the Sale Deed p. 104 l2O2:) dared 16.02,2023 presented by the Petitioner in respect of Flouse constructed on plot No. 223 admeasuring l50 Sq yards u,irh an plinrtr area 200 Sq Feet in Sy.No.1OO4/part Roof covered with ACC situated at

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

3. Heard Sri V.Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the petittoner and Ms.S'sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Plcader appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petttroner entered into sale deed with his vendor Mr"Kohinoor Charrdra Sekhar and executed a sale deed on 16 '2 '2023 ' However, when the petitioner approached respondent No 3 for registration of the sale deed, the same was inir-ially kept pentling vide ciocument P.No 104 of 2023 dated 16'2'2023' respondent has refused to register the sale deed' which is whot11, unsustainable The learned counsel further submitted that the issue involved in this q'rit petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W'P'No'16310 of 2019 andbatchdatedll.l.2023andalsorecentjudgnrentofthe Honble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v' The Sub-Registrart and requested to pass similar order in this u"rit petition also' 'zo2s 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 of the im pugned Refusa-1 Order dated 15.12.2023, 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 a part of an unauthorized layout and is in violation of the Commissioner artd Inspector General, Registration and Stamps Memo No.G2/257 12019 dated 26.8.2020 and 29 .12 ,2O2O . As per the instructions of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Endorsement No.CIG MAIL/AR/2008 dated 2.l.2OOB unregistered and va-lidated document cannot be acceptcd as a valid link document for registration. Further, the C&I(]RS through Memo No.13450l2OO7 daled 2l .7 .2008 lnstructed registenng authonty to verify title document before registration".

7. In this context, it is to extract the relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023, which is as under: "13. The power of the registering authority to refuse registration js only, if any of the grounds or ob.;ections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Regrstration Act, 1908, and the Rules made n thereuncler in particular Sections 19, 20, 21,22-A, 34,35 and n_rle 58 ol the I'elangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, are e::isting in respcct of anv such document presente(l for the regrstration. Exccpt, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the pror.isions of the Registration Act, 1908, the reglstenng ar.tthorities have no authority to refuse registration of a dor;ument on al1'other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which the impugned refusal orders in all these batch of Writ Per iLions are pztsscd is Lhat the Iink document shor,"'n in the respective rlocuments is a va.lidated and an unregistered document. By lookng into a vahdity of the link document, thc registering authority is indirect.ll, verifyng u,hcther the executants of the respective documents are hzL', ing valrd titlc or not to execute the documents in question. As hr,ld in thc al;ove referred judgment in thc case of Dr. Yadla Ramesh Natdu (1 supra), the registenng authority is not entitled to go into the title ol the parties to the document. It is a settled larv that the vendee under a clocument will not get a better title than I'ris vendor ar.d in case rf vr:ndor is not having a valid title over the property which is the subject matter of a paJtlcuia-r document, the vendee under the said document does not get any title over suclt property and mere registration of such document will not have ari effect on the properrv u'hich is the subject matter of the said documernt. 14 . As rightL,r, conccdcd b1' the learned Goyernment Pleader for Stamps .rnd ilcgistration. the regisrering authorities are nlt entitled to refuse registration of a document on mere ground that -]re title of th3 executants of the respective document is based upon the validated documcnt, though the same is compulsorily rt:gisterable document calnot be accepted and such a ground is not a..,ailable to thr: rsgisl..ir* authorities to refuse registration of a document on thrlt groun d.

19. ln the light of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the re:ipondcnt registering authoritics are r-rot entitled :o refuse registration of a document on the ground that the link document referred to in the respectivc document rs a validated document or to refuse registration of such document by placing reliance on endorsement, dated 02.01 .2008, rssued by the Commissioner and Inspector Genera.l of Stamps and Reglstration. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the respective Writ Petitions are set aside alrd Writ Petitions are allowed wth a further direction to the respondent registering authorities to receive the returned documents alld to process the same subJect to the condition of the said documents complying wrth the provisions of the Registratron Act, I908 and the Indiar Stamp Act, 1899."

8. In .I(,Gopd's case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The regrstenng of{icer 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 land in respect of which he has no title, the regrstering ofhcer cannot refuse to register the document if a.I the procedural comphances arc madc and the necessary stamp dutv as well as registration charges/ fee are pa.rd. We may note here that under the scheme ol the 1908 .{cr, it is not the function of the Sub_ Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which hc is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authorlty is satlsfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution ttrereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. Thc execution arld 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

To intorest in lhe property, the registered document cannot effect ary trar-rsfer. " g. ln vie* oi the above, follou'ing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub Registrar (supra) and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.163 10 of 2019 and batch dated 11.1 .2023 and in terms thereof, this writ petition rs disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to receive, register and release the document bearing P.No. I Oa/2023 presented by the petitioner in respect of the subjcct property, ',vithout reference lo the Intimation of Refusai Order dated 15.12.2023, subject to the con'lition that the said document complies with the provisiolrs of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Miscellaneous petitions, if aly, pending shall stand closr:d. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Ii:"ti[tJ" secretary' stamps and Resistration Department. Secretariat,

2. The Distrjct Registrar, Sanga Reddy District.

3. The Sub-Regjstrar, Sanga Reddy (R O) Sanga Reddy Distri<;t

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

5. One CC to SRI V.YADU KRTSHNA SA|NATH, Advocate [OPUC]

6. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REG|STRAT|ON, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies PMK TKS

HIGH COURT DATED: 0511012026

ORDER

WP.No.33 422 of 2026 GC TODAY H F- S,T,1 *%,n .\ 1 ,.F ) .) (t' *

n2 16 o{;t z (.,, .ri :+ l ) Ot: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {\ ii '.^.T1- 1-, (\ V)/ v\'\ \h