Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 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 order Direction or writ more pa(icularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for the records relating to and in connection with the Refusal order of the 5th Respondents bearing intimation of refusal order communicated through vide letter Memo No. '148lSRO/Ghatkesar/2025, dated. 19-06-2025 refusing to registrar the sale deed vide p. No. 100/2025, Dated. .lg- 06-2025, relating to Open Residential Plot bearing No.71612, in Survey Nos.63, 64,67,68 and 69, admeasuring 240 Sq.Yds., or 200.6 Sq,mts., Situated at Aushapur Village, Under Ghatkesar Municipality, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal- tMalkajgiri District. Telangana State (Herein called as said property) for the reasons based on validated document violating section '17 of registration Act. (W.A No. 446 of 2021) for being illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the --7 registration Act, 1908, discriminatory and unconstitutional and consequently further direct the 4th and 5th Respondent to register and release the document purported to be a sale deed lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petilion 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 4th and Sth respondent to register and release the pending document P.100/2025, dated. 19-06-2025 relating to Open Residential Plot bearing No.71612, in Survey Nos.63, 64,67,68 and 69, admeasuring 240 Sq.Yds., or 200.6 Sq.mts, Situated at Aushapui Village, Under Ghatkesar Municipality, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Makajgiri District. Telangana State pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. nlitnUOn ru Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.18O54 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 16310 of 2Ol9 and batch dated 1I.O1.2O23 and also the recent .Iudgment of the Hon'ble 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 not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners have not I 2025 SCC Online SC 74O submitted the document before the respondents and if ! SK,J w-P-No.1aO54 of 2O25 they submit the document, they have to consider the subject to compliance of the provislons of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 4 The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2Ol9 and batch dated 11.01.2023 is as under:

13. The power of the registering authority to refuse rcgistratiorl is onty, if any of the groui-rds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules made thereunder in particular 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, i908, the registering authorities have no authority to refuse registration of a document orl any 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 in the respective documents is a validated and an unregistered document. By lookrng into a vatidity of thc 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 the title of the parties to the document. It is a settled law that the vendee under a document will not get a better title than his vendor and in case if vendor is not having a vatid title over the propertl' which is the subject matter of a particular document, the vendee under the said document does not get any title over such propertl, and mere 3 w.p.No.t8os4 "f i{;! 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 enti ed to refuse registration o[ a document on mere ground that the title oI the exccutants 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 registering authorities to refuse registration of a documenr on that ground.

19. In the light of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the respondent registering authorities are not entitred 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 02.01.200g, issued by the Commissioner and lnspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the respective Writ petitions are set aside and Writ Petrtions are allowed wjth 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 with the provisions of the Registration Act, 19O8 and the lndian Stamp Act, 1899.

5. In K. Gopi,s case (supra 1), the Hon,ble Supreme Court held as under: "The registering ofhcer is not concerned with the ti e 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 rand in respect of which he has no ti,e, the registerrng officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedura[ 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 190g Act, it is not the function oI the Sub- Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor I i . r.l I 4 *.r.*".r"or+ "f if;i! has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied 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 regis[ration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, il any, that the executant possesses. [f the executant has no right, trtle, or interest in the property, the rcgistered document cannot elfect any transfer. 6 In view of the order passed in W.P.No.16310 of 2O 19 and batch dated I l.Ol .2023 and also the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi's case (supra 1) and for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ Petition 1S disposed of directing the respondent authorities to receive and register the sa-ie deed presented by the petitioners 1n respect of the subject plots without reference to the Memo No.l48/SRO/Ghatkesarl2O25, dated 19.06.2025 issued by the respondent No.S with respect to the intimation of refusal of the pending Document No.P. 10O/2025, dated 19.06.2025 ald subject to condition of the said document complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. There shall be no order as to costs - .1 ,)/ To, 5 sr(,J W.P.No.18O54 of 2O25 7 Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, sha-ll stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR {-rf SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary ,Revenue Department, Secretariat , T.S.,Hyderabad 2. The District Collector, [Vledchal- Malkajgiri District Hyderabad 3. The Commissioner Stamps and Registrar, Nampally, Hyderabad 4. The District Registrar, Medchal- Malkajgiri District 5. The Sub Registrar, Ghatkesar, Medchal- Malkajgiri District 6. One CC to SRl. ANIRUDH N, Advocate [OPUC] T Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION ,High Court for the 8. Two CD Copies State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] B W-* M S HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 . ,,'- : t. ;< ii !i Z //1 ' ." /,$ {i; 1 7 JUt ':- ,;I")\. td;\ ?025 ( I] c)I )P4Tcndf.' ORDER WP.No.18054 of 2025 * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1[ t