WP/32411/2026 of Peguda Narasimha Vs The State of Telangana on 29 September 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 aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in refusing to register and release the SaLe Deed uide pending Document P.No.52 12026 dated OZ.09.2026 by issuing Refusal Order/Intimation No.l1 of 2026 dated 11.09.2026 in respect of the plot bearing No.Og admeasuring 166 sq. yards or its equivalent to 13g.ZT sq. meters in Sy.Nos.1O6 and 107, situated at Sai Nagar Colony, Mallapur vi11age, under MMC Kapra Circle, Uppal Manda-l, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, as i1lega1 and arbitralv

3. Heard Mr. Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati, lt:arned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Glvernment Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitione r submits that the petitioner is the absolute oll'ner and possessor of the subject 1and, having acquired the same under the Agreement of Sale dated, 22.08.2026. Subsequently, the petitioner presented the said Agreement of Sale before the authorities for va-lidation and payment of deficit stamp duty. While the lnatter stood thus, on

07. O9.2026, the petitioner executed Sale Deed before respondent No.4 in favour of the purch,eser for registration' Ho'ur,ever, '-he same u,as initiall)' kept pendin g uide document P.No. 52/2026 dated 07.O9.2026, respondent Nc'.4 has refused to register the sale deed, rvhich is r,r,'hol1y u.nsust;.r-inable in vier'r' of the common order passed b."-- this Court dated 1i.01.2023, in W.P.No.163iO ol 2019 & batch, as rvel1 ar; the Iecent decision rendered br the Hon'b1e Apex Court tn .K.Gopi u. The Sub-

Registrarl. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to direct respondent No.4 to register and release the sale deed presented by the Petitioner.

5. The above made submissions a-re not seriously disputed by learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on beha-lf of the respondents. However, it is submitted that as per paragraph 3 of the amendments issued in G.O.Ms.No'28, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg'lII), dated 20.02.2025, arry unregistered plots, which are forming a part of an unauthorized layout, wherein, 10% of plots were already sold through registered sale deed on or before

26. O8.2O2O, irrespective of whether such owners have applied for LRS-2020 or not, shall be permitted for registration, duly collecting the layout regularization charges and pro-rata open space charges as mandated' As such, the petitioner has to pay requisite LRS fees for layout regularization (LRS2020) as per G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 20.O2.2025 for regularization of the subject plots.

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already paid the requisite LRS 12025 SCC Online SC 740

1ee s ils per G.O.N{s.No.28 dated 20.O2.2\)25, fc,r regularization of the subject plots

7. Learned Assistant Government Plea,ler fai.lv submits that the respondent authorities lvill consicler the case of the petitioner and take appropriate action in zLccordtrnce $'ith lau'

8. A perusal ol the impugned refusal order dated 11.09.2026, discloses that the registration of the sale deed presented b1' the petitioner lr'as refused on the following reasons: "As per C&lG l'4emo No.G2l2t7 l20 19, da-ed 26-()8-2020 ard instructions dated 29-12-2020, no new plot sha11 be registered unless the same is approved by the compete:rt authrrity of forms part of a,n authorised layout. Regrstration ma7 be ta-k en up only in respect of plots / structures previously acquired ttrrough r.a1id registered documents, authorised layouts, pkrts regularised under applicable or LRS/BRS/BPS schemes. . In the present case, the subject Plot No.8 s stater'l to be rn an unapproved la1'out, ard no, earlier valid -egrster,:d clocument establishing prior registration / acquisitior of the subject individual plot or a-ny approved layout / regulerisation proceedings has been produced. Therefo re, the reglstration of the subjecl ne\,\,' plot in the unauth,rrised / u napproved 1a1'out rs not perm:ssib1e. I{ence, in exercise of the pou,'ers under Sectior. 7 L of the Registra.tion Act. 1908, the reglstration of Pending Document No.52,/2026 is hereb-v- REFUSED for the reasons statt d acove."

9. In this context, it is to extract the relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated ll .OI .2023, which is as under:

13. The power of the registering 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 thereunder in patticular 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 enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the registering authorities have no authority to refuse registration of a document on arry other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which the impugned refusaL orders in all these batch of Writ Petitions are passed is that the link document shown rn 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 authonty 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 wrll not get a better title than his vendor and 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 the said document does not get any 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.

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 tifle of the executants of the respective document is based upon the validated document, though the same is compulsorily registerable document cannot be accepted and such a ground is not available to the registenng authorities to refuse registration of a document on tJlat ground.

19. 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 is a validated document or to refuse registration of such document by placing reliance on endorsement, dated 02.O1 .2008, issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps arrd Registration. Accordingly,

the inpugned orders in the rcspective Writ Petition i are set asidc ald Writ Petitions are allou.ed with a further di-ection to the Iespondent registering authoritles to r:ceive the returned docurleni.s an-rd to process the same subje:t to tht: ccndition of the said documents complling with the pro!'rsions of the Registration Act, 1908 arld the lndran Stamc Act, 1399.

10. In I(. Gopi's case (1 supra), the H:n'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The regrstering oflicer is not concerned lrith the title held bv the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to dccide whether the executant has any title. Even if art executant executes a sa-le deed or a lease in respect of a land in respeot of wh.ch he has no title, the registering officer cannot reft:se to register the document if all the procedural compliances are rnade and the necessarl stamp duty as well as registrat:ion chrrrges/ flee are paid. We may note here that under the schr:me of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Regi:rtrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendrr has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. ()nce th e registering autholrty is satisfied that the parties to the d()cument are present before him and the parties adm.t execrLtion thereof before him, subject to makrng procedural conrpliances as na-rrated above, the document must be regrstered. The execution and reglstration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executart possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest i.T the J,roperty, the registered document cannot effect any transf(lr.

11. In vieu- of the order in W.P.No.163,.0 of 2019 and batch dated 11.07.2023 as ivel1 as the Judgnent r>f the Honble Supreme Court in K. Gopi's case (1 supra) and in terms thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondenl No..l to receive, register aIld release the document bearing P.No. 5212026 dated 07.09.2025 presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject proper'-)', u,it -rout reference to the Intirnation of Refusal No. i1 of 202,,6 dated 11.09.2026

passed by respondent No.4, subject to the petitioner paying the requisite charges as per G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 20.O2.2025, as well as subject to compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899. It is open for the Registering Authority to refuse registration of the subject document on any other reasons, duiy assigning such reasons for refusa,l in terms of Section 71 of the Act, 1908, and communicate the said decision to the petitioner. It is made clear that mere registration of the document does not confer title on the subject property and this order would not have any bearing on all those matters where title/rights of the parties are pending, if arty, before the authorities, either in revision/ appeals for adjudication, and in any other case, this order also shall not preclude the parties in asserting their rights before a competent Court of law. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stald closed. There shall be no order as to costs' //TRUE COPY//

1. The PrinciPal Secretary, Revenue Secretariat, HYderabad. SD/. M. OSMAN ALIBAIG ASSTSTANT REPfTRAR (e' SECTION OFFIGER To, Stamps and Registration Department'

2. The Commissioner and lnspector General, RegiSt.ationS and Stamps, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

3. The District Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

4. TheSub-Registrar,Registraroffice,Kapra'Med:hal-MalkajgiriDistrict.

5. One CC to SRI SANJEEVA REDDY GARLAPATI, Advocate [OPUC]

6. TwoCCstoGPFoRSTAMPS&REG|STRAT|oN,HighCourtfortheState of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD CoPies BSR TKSw

CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 2910912026

ORDER

WP.No.32411 of 2026 z,'i{"*a l.' <. r )3 o1[rtT '.:*:. :,. 4 , xr6 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ."O'-"-i \(1\i r-L "i\tt-,'"-'