1 Sri. Medaboina Ashok v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe 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 particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for the records relating to and in connection with the Refusal order of the sth Respondents bearing intimation of refusal order communicated through vide letter lvlemo No. 149/SRO/Ghatkesar/2025, dated' 19-06-202srefusingtoregistrarthesaledeedvideP.No.l0,l/2025,Dated. 19-06-2025,relatingtoopenResidentialPlotbearingNo.Tl6ll,inSurvey Nos.63,64,67, 68 and 69. admeasuring 240 Sq Yds', or 200'6 Sq mts'' Situated atAushapurVillage,UnderGhatkesarMunicipality,GhatkesarMandal'Medchal- Malkajgiri 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 registration Act, 1908, discriminatory and u n co n stitutional and consequenfly further direct the 4th and 5th Respondent to register and release the document purported to be a sale deed. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 4th and Sth respondent to register and release the pending document P.10112025. dated. 19-06-2025 relating to Open Residential plot bearing No.71611 , 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, tr/edchal-Malkajgiri District. Telangana State pending disposal of the above writ petitlon. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ANIRUDH.N Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR STAMpS & REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER l I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SARATH WRIT PETITIO N No.18O55 of2O2E ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners ald learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents ald 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 a:od batch dated 1I.O1.2O23 and also the recent Judgment 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 YO25 SCC Online SC 74O sr(,J w.P.No-18055 oJ 2O25 submitted the document before the respondents and if they submit the document, they have to consider the SAINC subject to compliance of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 4 The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.163l0 of 2Ol9 and batch dated 11.O1.2023 is as under:

13. The power of the registering authority to refuse registration is onty, if any of the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and thc Rules made thereunder in particular Sections 19,20,21,22-A,34,35 ar,d rule 58 of thc T'elangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, are existing in respect of any such document presented for lhe 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 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 lhe link document shown in the respective documents is a validated and an unregistered document. Bv looking into a validity of the link document, the registering authorit-v is indirectly verifying whether the executants of the respective documents are having valicl tilrle 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 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 propertl,'and mere 3 sr(,J W.P.No,18055 ol2025 registration of such document will not have an effect on the property which is the subject matter of the said document-

14. As rightty 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 title 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 registering authorities to refuse registration of a document on that 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 O2.O1.2O08, 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 with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the lndian Stamp Act, 1899. 5 In K. Gopi's case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held 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 i[ an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering ofhcer 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 of the Sub- Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor I t / I 4 sr(,J W.P.No.18055 of 2O25 has title to th(l property which he is seeking to transfer- Once the registering 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. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer. 6 In view of the ord<lr passed in W.P.No.163 1O of 2Ol9 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 sale deed presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject plots without reference to the Memo No. l49/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. 10 1/2025, dated 19.06.2025 and subject to condition of the said document complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 190g and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 w.p.No.raoss tif;! 7 Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// F.Y\l SECflON OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary Rep by rts Ri:venue Department, Secretariat Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The District Collector, Medchal- 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 SRI ANIRUDH N,'hdvocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderab'ad [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 ORDER WP.No.18055 ot 2025 1}1E S ltl I ( o J. 1 I JUL 2025 Pz * * FATC DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \r \T