WP/31871/2026 of M/s. Skanda Buildtech Vs The State of Telangana on 23 September 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION NO: 31871 OF 2026 Between: M/s.SkandaBuildtech,havingitsRegisteredOfficeatFlatNo'101,A-Block' Aryamitra Crest, Sri Gautam colony, Puppalguda, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. Represented by its Sole Proprietor, Mallabathina Suresh Reddy, S/o Venku Reddy Mallabaihina, aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o Flat No'101' n-Blott, Aryamitra Crest, Sri Gautam Colony, Puppalguda, Gandipet Mandal' Ranga Reddy District. ...PETITIONER AND '1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District

3. The Sub - Registrar, Gandipet lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 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 No.44 of 2026 dated 06.08.2026 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and to the Judgment passed by theHon'bleApexCourtinK.GopiVs.TheSub.Registrarandalsototheorders passed by this Hon'ble court and set-aside the same and consequently direct the RespondentNo,3toregisterandreleasetheSaleDeed(P580/2026)dated rtF;FEE Erts:EE7 21.07.2026 presented by the Petitioner in respect of Open Land in Plot No 5' forming part of Survey No. 94, admeasuring 876 Square Yards or equivalent to 732.45 Square I\rleters, (out of 13,310 Square Yards or Ac 2-30 guntas)' situated at Neknampur Village, Gandipet tvlandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana state within the limits of cyberabad tr,4unicipal corporation, Narsingi circle-45 without reference to Refusal Order No.44 of 2026 dated 06.08.2026. .A. NO: 1 OF 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 register and release the sale Deed (P 580/2026) dated 21 .O7 .2026 presented by the Petitioner in respect of open Land in Plot No.5, forming part of survey No. 94, admeasuring 876 square Yards or equivalent to 732.45 SquareMeters,(outof13,310SquareYardsorAc.2.30guntas),situatedat Neknampur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana state within the limits of cyberabad Municipal corporation, Narsingi circle-4$ without reference to Refusal order No.44 of 2026 dated 00.08.2026, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TIIE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.3187L OF 2026 CNR No. HBH CO LO 65627 2026 23ED SEFTEMBER, 2026. Between: M/ s. Skanda Buildtech AND The State of Telangana, Rep. bv its PrinciPal Secretary' SLamps and Registration Deparlment' Secreiariat, Hyderabad and 2 others' o R,DER: Petitioner ... ResPondents With the consent of both the parties' this Writ Petition rs taken up for disposal at the admission stage'

2. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No'3 in issuing Intimation of Refusal bearing No'44 of 2026 dated 06 'O8 '2026 in respect of Open Land in Plot No 5' for:ming part of Survey No'94' admeasuring 876 square yards (out of 13'310 square yards)' situated at Neknampur Village, Gandipet Mandal' Ranga Reddy District, rx,.ithin the limits of Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Narsingi Circle, the petitioner frled the present Writ Petition'

PIi,J Wp-31871 2026

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

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the order dated 11.O1.2O23 passed by this Court in W'P' No'16310 of 20 19 & batch and also the recent judgment of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in K,Gopi a. The Sub-Registrarl, the hrst, second and fourth reasons assigned in the impugned order cannot be sustained. Similarly, having regard to the order dated 02 07 '2024 in W.P. No. 15471 of 2024, the other reason assigned in the impugned order cannot be sustained. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the above said orders, the impugned Refusal Order dated 06 -08.2026 is liable to be set aside'

5. The above made submission is not seriously disputed by learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

6. A perusal of the record reveals that the registration has been refused on the following grounds: "1. The land admeasuing Ac.2.30 gts'' in Sy No 94 oJ Neknampur Vitlage is sctid to haue been acqtired by uay of succession in the name of Shiu Pershad @ Pandit Shiu Pershad Jtt Bojpai, S/o. Lqte Pandit Laxtnan Pershad Ji Bajpai. As per ueifcation

12025 SCC Online SC 740

ar--. PK,J ' p,37871 2026 of Bhtbharathi records names of parties are not reJlected and title of the executants is not established

2. The executants haue not produced any registered Agreements of Sale in fauour of consenting parties'

3. The executants had not fumished NALA conuersion proceedings from the Competent Authoitg as required bg C&IG Memo No.G3/ 3247/ 2018, Dated: 01/ 05/ 2019'

4. The scheduled land- is not in the approued layout of the competent authoitA Though the executcnts ctaim that the plot is ,"gitrrir.d under LRS scheme, no proceedings haue been produced except receipt of partia[ payment '

7. Insofar as the objection taken by the authority as to non- availability of registered link document is concerned' it is apt to state that in K.Gopi's case (supra 1), the Honble Supreme Court held as under: "The registering offfcer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. 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 land, in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if al1 the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid' We may note here that under the scheme ofthe 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 ."goteri.rg authority is satished that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances 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 lf the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property' the registered document cannot effect any transfer' "

PK,J wp-31871-2026

8. Similarly, in W.P.No 16310 of 2019 and batch dated ll.Ol.2023 this Court has held as under: '13. The power of the registering authority to refuse registration is on1y, if any of the grounds or objections tnlt are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 19O8, and the Rules made thereunder in particular Sections 1,9, 20, 21, 22-A, 34, 35 and rule 58 of the Telalgana 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 Regrstration Act, 1908, the registering authorities have no authority to refuse registration of a documenl on anJ. other ground As already noted above, the ground on *t i"n tft. impugned refusal orders in all these batch of Writ Petitions are passed is that the link document shown in the respective documents is a validated and an unregistered d.ocument. 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 th; title of the parties to the document lt is a settled law that the vendee under a document will not get a better titte than his vendor and in case if vendor is not having a valid 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 aI effect on the property which is the subject matter of the said document.

14. As rightly conceded by the learned Govemment 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.

PK,J Wp 31a7 L2o26

19. In the light of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the respondelt 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 O2.O1.2OOg, issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the respective Writ Petitions are set aside and Writ petitions 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 complying w.ith the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.,

9. In view of the above principle of law, it is thus clear that the Registering Authority is not entitled to go into the title of the parties to the document. Therefore, the first, second and fourth grounds assigned in the impugngd refusal order cannot stand to the scrutiny of the Court.

10. Insofar as the objection taken by the Registering Authority is with regard to NALA conversion proceedings. Said issue has already been dealt with by this Court in W.p. No.15471 of 2024 wherein the following order has been passed: "19. With the above obserwations, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Registering Authority to receive, register and release the subject document, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indiar Registration Act, 190g, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order without insisting for the proceedings of NALA Tax under the provisions of the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for nonagricultural purposes) Act, 2006. [t is also open to

PK,J wp-31871 2026

the Registering Authority to refuse to register the subject document, by specilicalty assign the reasons in terms of Section 71 of the Act, 1908 and communicate the said decision to the petitioner' It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall pay the Nala tax as per the provisions of The Telalgala Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 as and when demanded by the appropriate authorities under the said Act ' ll.Inthatviewofthematter,thethirdreasonassignedinthe impugned refusal also cannot be sustained

12. For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Registering Authority to register and release the pending document No'P'580/2026 presented by the petitioner, without reference to the impugned Relusal bearing No.44 of 2026 d'ated 06.08.2026 issued by respondent No'3' subject to compliance with the provisions under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899' without insisting for the proceedings of NALA Tax under the provisions of the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for non-agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. It is also open to the Registering Authority to refuse to register the subject document, on any other reasons' by specificaiiy assigning the reasons and communicate the said decision to the petitioner. It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall pay the NALA Tax as per the provisions of The Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non Agricultural PK,J Wp-3147 r_2026 Purposes) Act, 2006, as and when demanded by the appropriate authorities under the said Act. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

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

2. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The Sub - Registrar, Gandipet N,4andal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. One CC to SRI S.SRIDHAR, Advocate IOPUCI

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

6. Two CD Copies

To, BSR TKS

HIGH COURT DATED: 2310912026

ORDER

WP.No.31871 ot 2026 DTSPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS { CC TODAY tiE STAIt [1[tI il6 ''\ 5o rl T : rq