High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndiar praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs Order or Direction pleased to declare the Refusal Order dated 04-07 -2025 vide Pending Doc No.212025 on the file of the 3rd Respondent herein as illegal arbitrary violative of Arts '14 and 3004 of Constitution of lndia apart from being ultra vires the provisions of Registration Act 1908 and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent herein to forthwith receive, register and release the document presented by the petitioners in respect of open land admeasuring 1296.00 Sq. Yrds., in Ward No.2 in Sy No. 453 situated at Athmakur Village, Parkal, Hanumakonda District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affrdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may' be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to receive the returned docunrent No P2 of 2025 dated 04-07-2025 in respect of the subject open land and process the same tn accordance with law pending disposal of the above writ petilron. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.PAVAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH UIRIT PETITION No.21496 of 2Q25 ORDER: Heard Sri R.Pavan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and ReBistration appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.

2. It is stated that the petitioner questioning the intimation of refusa-l order No.Rl of 2025 dated O4.O7.2O25 uide pend.ing document bearing No.P2l2O25 passed by the respondent No.3 on the ground that the subject property is under prohibited properties list for registration, as not acquired by the executing party (Donor) by means of a valid registered document as informed by the Commissioner and Inspector General Registration and Stamps ' uide Memo I No.G2/257/2019 dated 26.08.2020 and Memo even number dated 29.12.2020 besides with reference to the Commissioner and Inspector General Registration and Stamps Mail dated

02.01.2005.

3. Basing on the counter affidavit fiIed by the respondent No.3, the petitioner relies on the simple Sale Deed 2 dated C)8.08.2O18, which was not registered lrut later va-lidated through impounding under Section 41 of 1l-re Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and validation of the subject docurnent under Section 4l is not equivalent to registratic,n as clarified in Commissioner and Inspector General's Mail rlatecl 02.01.2008 and aiso the Memos issued by the Commissic,ner and Inspector General's uide Memo No.c2l257/2019 datecl 26.08.2020 read. with clarilrcation dated 29.12.2O2O.

4. The relevant portion at Para No.2 of the Memo No.G2l257/2O19 dated 29.12.2O2O stated a,.; undr:r "2) In order to obviate any hardship relatinB to registratron of documents, after careful consideration o[ t-re relevant provisions of law and circumstances, th( lbllowrng clarifications are issued, in partial modificalion of the instructions cited under reference above: i) Registrations can be taken up in respe:r tof open plots/ structures, if the sane has been acquired br. the present owner through a valid registered docume 1t (jarlier. ii) However, no "new plot" shall be registered ulless it has br:en approved by the competent authority cr is in an authorised layout. New plot would mean a fresl plot which is being brought for registration for the hrst tir]re or being sold by developers for the frrst time. in) As clarified earlier, there is no restriction on r.egistration of plots in authorised layouts, plots regular secl ur]dcr earlier LRS Schemes and buildings/ structures covered under earher BPS/BRS Schemes."

5. As per Clause 2(i) of the Memo dated 29.12.2020 shows that Registrations can be taken up in respect of open plots/ structures, if the same has been acquired by the present owner through a valid registered document earlier.

6. In the instant case, the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 1296 Sq. Yards in Survey No.453 situated at Atmakur Village, near Achaiah Pamu and the same was purchased through a simple Sale Deed dated

08.08.2018, consequently, the same was impounded on

06.06.2024 by the respondent No.2 after following due process of law and also after paying the necessary stamp duty and penalty from the Petitioner.

7. Once the Sale Deed was impoundea Uy competent authority, it can be taken into account as the same is a valid document on par with the registered document as per the order of this Court in W.P.No.163 1O of 2Ol9 and batch dated 11.01.2023 and the relevant portion of the said order is extracted as under: 4 "13. The power of the registering authority ro refrrse registration is only, if any of the grounds or ob]e( lions rhat ELre enumerated under the provisions of the Regist|ation 4ct, I 9O8, ard the Rules made thereunder in particul€ r Sectrc,ns )9. 20. 21, 22-A.,34,35 and n-rle 58 of the Telan6l;rn;r Rules undcr the Registration Act, 1908, are cxisting in rcspect of trny such document presented for the registratio r Dxcept, the grounds or objections that are enumerated tLn(ler rhe Provisions of the Reglstration Act, 1908, the -cgisterrng ;ruthorities have no authority to refuse registr rtjon (r- a (locument on any other ground. As already noted :Lbove, he ground on which the impugned refusal orders ir. all th,rse batch of Writ Petitions are passed is that the link rlor:umcnt sihor,vn rn thc respective documents is a validat, cl and an unregistered document. By tooking into a validity l,f the Lnk document, the registering authority is indirectl,' v(lrlfvrng \vhether the executants of the respective docu lents lre havrng valid title or not to execute the docrr:nents ln qucstion. As hcld in the above referred judgment I1 the citse of Dr. Yadla Ramesh Najdu (1 supra), the 'egrstering authonty is not entitled to go into the title of th€ parties to the document. It is a settled law that the vendte under a document will not get a better titte than his ven:lor and rn r:asc if vendor is not having a valid title over th: property .vhich is the sub]ect matter of a particular docr rynt, the 'rendec under the said document does not get anv title ovcr such property and mere registration of such documr:nt 'pill uot have an effect on the property which is I rc subje.l rnatter of the said document. t4. As rightly conceded by the learned Governmerlt PIeaCer tor Stamps and Registration, the registering authoriltes are 'rot entitled to refuse registration of a documert on mere qround that the title of the executants of the respective rlocument is based upon the validated docume:tt, though ihe same is compulsorily registerable document r;annot be rlccepted arld such a ground is not availat,le to the 5 registering authorities to refuse registration of a document on that ground.

19. ln the light of the above, thls 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 02.0I.2008, issued by the Commissioner and lnspector Genera-l of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the respective Writ Petitions are set aside and Writ Petitions are allowed wtth a further direction to the respondent registering authorities to receive the returned documents and to process thc same subject to the condition of the said documents complying with thc provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indlan Stamp Act, 1899."

8. As per the above said order, it clearly shows that the petitioner having valid document for. registration dated

08.08.2018 and impounded on 06.06.2024 and the same is in consonance with the Clause 2(i) of the Memo Nq.G2 1257 l2Ol9 dated 29.12.2O2O.

9. Therefore, impugrred refusal order No.R1 of 2025 dated 04.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 is illegal ard arbitrary and the Same is liable to be set aside. In view of the same, the respondents have to register the pending document bearing No.P2l2025 presented by the petitioner in respect of 6 the subject property without reference to the inrpugnecl refusal order lJo. R 1 of 2025 dated 04 .O7 .2025.

10. In view of the above finding, this Writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned refusal order No.Rl of 2025 dated O4.O7.2O25 passed by the respondent No.3. Consecluently, the respondent authorities are directed to register the pending document bearing No.F2/2025 presented by the petitioner with respect to the subje,:)t property within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of t:opy of this order, subject to the petitioner complying with the pror,:.sions of the Registration Act, 1908 as well as the Indian Stamp Act, 1g99. It will be open to the Registering Author ity to refuse the documents presented before him, if he has ar ry other objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of s.rch decisron and communicate the said decision to the petitic,.rlr. Irto order as to costs; I 1. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, per rding in this writ petition shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Prrnr;ipal Secretary, Revenue (Stamp Secretariat Buildrng, Hyderabad, State of Tela a d Re,gistration) Department,

2. The District Registrar, Stamps and Registration, {anumakonda District, Telangana State

3. The Sub-Registrar, Stamps and Registration, Parkal, Hanumakonda District, Telangan a State

4. One CC to SRI R PAVAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 6 Two CD Copies \ BSR BS W t HIGH COURT DATED:21 10812025 \ ORDER WP.No.21496 of 2025 Z' . r',, /1'ku' /+// )li; 1E i) '"'/t \\'J'rri. 'r \ SEP 2[6 .\ J: ,,' /' -t ''-.i, I i t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1 q 1 \ .l/\