Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in K. Gopi vs The Sub-Registrarl and requested to pass similar order

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 an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondent No.3 herein in issuing the impugned Endorsement dl. 1o-4-2O25 bearing File No.B/358/2025 refusing to register the Sale Deed in respect of the agricultural lands in Sy.Nos. 61tAal2, 61tBlEl112 admeasuring ac. 5.03 gts., situated at Narayanpur village, Muduchinthalpaly Mandal, Medchal tvlalkajgiri District, on the ground that the said lands are notified as prohibited property as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same T lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Sec,tion 151 CPC praying that in the cirt:umstanr es stated in the affidavit filed in surport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3'd respondt:ttt herein to receive, register and re ease the ' Sale Deed presented by the petitio-rer pursuant to the Slot booked on 17-1;l-2)24 bearing Application No. 240081r)494, pending disposal of the main Writ Petitic n Counsel for the Petitiorrer: SRl. S. KRTSHNA SHARMA Counsel for the Resporrdents: AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.12083 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for the respondents ald perused the entire material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 the recent Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in K. Gopi Vs The Sub-Registrarl and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration has produced the copy of the written instructions and states that the available revenue records and 22-A register have been verified and it is revealed that the land in Sy.No.59/B, admeasuring to an 12q)S SCC Online SC 740 \i 2 w. P.No.l2o83 of?t;\ extent ol A<:-2-2O guntas and Sy'No'61, adrrLeitsuring to an extent c,f Ac.5-05 guntas is notified undei' 22-A as in Sy 'No'59/B' prohibited properties and lalds admeasurit'rg to an extent of Ac'6-118 gutrtas and Sy.No.61/O. admeasuring to an extent cf Ac 5-15 guntas along rvith other Sy.Nos. have been metrked e s Lawaris lands lrom the pahani for the year 1995-96 rlr-iv'a-rds'

4. Leetrned Assistant Government Pl :ader for Stamps an,1 Registration further submrts ttra the DRO has tssut:,1 Check notes with *o pp6r/J'}eshi/Spl/ 17 /1995. oated,29.O4. 1995 in which it is endorsed that the where about of the pattedar are :tot l<ncwn these lands are larvaries lands and action taken rrnder A'P' Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, l<)'74 and on verilrczttiortolpahani2OOT-Os,itisrevea1ec1thatthe name of fi:i P.Gopal Reddy S/o Ranga Reddl' has been entered u4rile deleting the lawaries u'ithorrt any valid orders issr-Led by the competent authorities, uho in turn has execu.l.ed sale deeds. The said registraLti' lns cannot be done irs the above said lands notilled as prohibited )r / 3 sK' J W.P.IVo.12O83 of 2O25 I property and there are no relevant orders issued by the competent authority. Accordingly, the sarne was informed to the applicant through endorsement uid.e File No.B/358/2O25, dated IO.O4.2O2S and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents passed impugned orders mainly on two grounds, one is that the petitioner tailed to file linked documents and the second one is that the property is under prohibited list. But the respondents have not given any particulars about the issuance of prohibited list under Section 22-A of Registration Act. The respondents mentioned that the property was under prohibited list but the same is contra-ry to their records in which it was mentioned that paharries for the years 1990-199 1 and 1995-1996 were recorded as patta land as stated in impugned endorsement dated 1O.O4.2025.

6. With regard to providing linked documents, this Court held in W.P.No.16310 of 2Ol9 and batch, dated 4 sI(, .. UJ.I.No.12O83 of 202s ll.Ol.2}23 and the relevant portion of the sii<l order is as under

13. the pr',.,er of the registering authority to refur;e registr \tion is on11, ii any oI the grounds or objcctions that are ellumerilte(l under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rule; made thereunder in particular Sections 19,20,21,22-A, 34,3l and mle 58 o'the lelangana Rules under the Registration Ac' , 1918, are cxisting in respect of any such document prcsenlel br lhe regislration. Except, the grounds or objections thal are enrrtnt:rated undcr the provisions of the Registration Act, lgOtJ, thc re€istering authoritier; have no authority to refuse registration of a do:trt rent on any crther pround. As already noted above, the grorind on n'1 ich the impugned refusal orders in all these batch of U'rit Ireliti)ns,are passed is that the tink document shorvn in the resp:cti\''l loc umelrts is a validated and an unregistcred document. Bv looking into a vali<Lh' of :he hnk document, the registcring authlrit-v is' ir directly verif,r'ing vhether thc executants of the respectivr: docume nts are havlng vatid title or not to execute the documentr; in qLtes ion' As held ln th: above referred judgment in the case of [)r. Yadla llamesh Naidr,r (1 sl pra), the rcgistering authority is not entiCed to go into the larties to the documcnt. It is a settled la'v thzLt tlx vendee titte of th€ undcr a cccument will not get a better title than ltis vt-'nclor and irl case il verCor is not having a valid title over the l)ropcrlv lrhich is the srubje,:t matter of a particular document, the vendcc ur der the said docunrent does not get an-v title over such pl.opertl altd mere registraticr of such document ivill not have an effe( t on the l)roperty which is the subject matter of the said document.

14. As riShtll, conceded by the learned Governrnent Pler'der for Stalnps a1d Registration, the registering authorities ar(' IIot entitled to refuse a(,gistration of a document on mere ground that th : title of the execulants of the respective document is based ul)on the validated (locument, though the same is compul:rorill' I egisterable documenl :annot be accepted and such a ground is not lrva ilable to the r-egistering authorities to refuse registration of a do:ulnent on thar grou[L 5 sI(, J W.P.No.12O83 of2o25

19. In the light of the aboye, 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 02.01.2008, issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the impugned orders rn the respective Writ Petitions are set aside and Writ Petitions are allorved 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 rvith the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

7. With regard to the verification of title and pow.er of the registering authority, recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi's a. The Sub-Registrqr (Supra-71 held that the registering authority has no power to veri[r the title of the executants and the relevant portion of the said order is as under: "The registering officer 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 all 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 of the 1908 Act, it is not the function ofthe 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 and the parties admit execution thereof before o W. t.No.12083 of 2O2s S him sublr:r:I to making procedural compliances as ltarrale( .rbove, the docurr€nt must be registered. The executlon an(l reg..sl rat ion ofa doctrment ,rave the effect of transferring only thole rigLts, ii any, that :he e(,tcutant possesses. If the executant has no r]ght, tirle, or intcrest in the property, the registered documcnt <rannot efl:ct anv tran s fc r.

8. In view of the order in W.p.Nc.1631( of 2019 and batch lated 11.OI.2O23 and also ti're Jnigment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi,s ca.se lsupra 1) and for the r-easons mentioned therein, the \\/rit petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order of Refusal daterl 10.04.2025 passed by the responc.ent No.3 and the resl),lndent authorities are directr:d to re ceive the returned do,luments pertaining to the suit sch.e(lule land and proc:ess -he same subject to the condLtion oi the said documents complying \Mith the provisions of the Registration .\ct, 1908 and the Indian Stirmir A<:t, 1899. There shall Irr: n6 61ds1 aS to costs-

9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any penrlin5,; in this writ petition. shall stald closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. \oe GOWI1I SHANKAR PU'TY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The PrinciPal Secretary, Secretariat, T S.,llYdera 2. The District Reg strar, M 3. The Tahsildar art'l Joint Malkajgiri District Revenue (Registration an edchal Malkajg iri District Sub-Registrar, Muduchintal Stamps) Decartment, pally tVanda , lt4edchal ,, *i" ::il *i,: I

4. One CC to SRl. S. KRISHNA SHARMA, Ad-vocate.[OPUC] ;. iffi 66;t"-GC FOn SrArrrrps AND REG|STRATION ,Hish Court for the - 6. Two CD CoPies State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] BM w .:t.' l HIGH COURI- \ DATED:0210512025 ORDER WP.No.12083 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,e n Xk^" /;: 'cr ..AI€ o l/ ': 0? JJr'l ?6 7i qi\!:1;;'r-rir ":-') (} -t' .,] k t-