Kandala Raghavender Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 declaring the action of the Respondent No.6 in refusing the registration and documentation and passed the refusal order through vide No.4 of 2025, dated 10.07.2025 on the purchased plot of the Petitioner to an extent of 111 Sq. Yards in Plot No.54/A, in Survey Nos.29, 35 and 36, which is situated at Ranjit Paradise, Koheda Village, Abduallapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on the ground that the Petitioner is not having the Link Deed Document is illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitution al and violation of Articles 14, 15,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and also violation of principles of Natural Justice and set aside the refusal order through vide No. 04 of 2025 daled 10.07.2025 and consequently direct the Respondent No.6 to release the regular Sale Deed on the purchased plot of the Petitioner to an extent of .1 .1 1 Sq. yards in Plot No.54iA, in Survey Nos.29, 35 and 36, which is situated at Ranjit paradise, Koheda Village, Abduallapurmet [VIandal, Ranga Reddy District. I.A.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 Respondent No.6 to release the regular Sale Deed on the purchased plot of the Petitioner to an extent of 111 Sq. yards in plot No.54lA, in Survey Nos.29, 35 and 36, which is situated at Ranjit paradise, Koheda Village, Abduallapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents : SRI L.RAVINDER, AGp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.25498 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard Mr. D.Udit Narayan, learned counsel representing lea,r:ned counsel for the petitioner for the petitioner and learned Smt S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents. With their consent, this writ'petition 1S disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

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.lto. 16310 of 2OL9 and batch dated ll.OI.2O23 and a,lso recent Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court h 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 12025 SCC Online SC 740 2 submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

4. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No. 1631O of 2Ol9 and batch dated 1 1.01.2023 is as under:

13. The power of the registering authority to refuse rcgistration is only, if any of the grounds or objections that are enumeratcd under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules made thercunder in particular Sections 19,20, 21,22-A, 31,35 and rule 58 of the 'Ielangana Rules under tlte Registration Act, 1908, are existing in respect of any such document presented for thc registration. trxcept, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the registerir)g 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 the link document shown in the respective documcnts is a validated and an unregistered document. By loo\ing 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. Yadta 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 lar.r, 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 thc property rvhich 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 an effect on the propert_v 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 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 02.01-2O08, 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 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 olhcer 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 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 19o8 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 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 I I i 4 documcnt have the effect of transferring only those rights, rf any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot eltect anv transfer.

6. In view of the order in W.p.No.163 10 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01 .2023 and also the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi,s case (supra i) and for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to receive and register the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject plots without reference to the Letter [,r.No. 143/2025 dated tO.O7.2O2S issued by the respondent No.6 and subject to condition of the said document cornplying with the provisionsl under the Registration Act, 19Og and the Indian Stamp Act, 1g99. T'here shall be no order as to costs.

7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ pqt4iqfr, Sb4l qtand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR 1 i \ sEcTroN oFFrcER _l

1. The Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration D partment, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Stamps and Registration Department, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

3. The lnspector General, Stamps and Registration Department, Telangana, Hyderabad.

4. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy, Ranga Reddy District. 5 The District Reqistrar. Ransa Reddv. Ranoa ffeddy District. To

6. The Sub-Registrar, Pedda Amberpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at B One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] t \ SA t HIGH COURT DATED:2810812025 I t /' o .14 S frr 16 o, t) 10 SEP 2U ; ,l \/ a' // ^ * ,.,1/ -a-;,' t D4 I rtt''\ :s-n t ORDER WP.No.25498 of 2O2S DISPOSING OF THE W.P WTHOUT COSTS. \ ot1 lcl