The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lVlandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.3 in refusing to process the registration and release the Pending Gift Deed Dated 06.08.2025 bearing Document No. P731 of 2025 under [\,4emo Dated '14.08.2025 vide Memo 318 of 2025 in respect of Plot admeasuring 200 Sq. yds, in Plot No. 231-GlNorth Part, in Block-G, in Sy. No.364, situated at Tellapur Village ES tr4unicipality Ramachandrapuram l\rlandal, Sangareddy District, is against to the Memo Dahed 20.02.2025 vide G.O.Ms. No.28 issued by the Government of Telangana as illegal, arbitrary against to the provisions of the Registration Act and Stamps Act as u nco nstitutio na I being violation of Article '14, 21 Constitution of lndia and consequently Direct the Respondent No.3 to Receive, Register the Gift Deed fated 06.08.2025 bearing No. p731 f 2025 and Release the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour. .nay be pleased to DIRECT the Responder.t No. 3 Receive, Register the Gift De.r_. Dated 06.08.2025 bearing No. P73'1 ot 2Ct25 and Release the same pursuant to the lr/lemo Dated 20.02 2025 vide G-O.lr,4s;. No. 28 issued by the Government c --elangana, to Release the same. thereby Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAVINDER REDDY MUppu Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. S. SRAVANTHI, AGp Fr:)tt STAMpS AND REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH UIRIT PETITIONNo.2829S OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Muppu Ravinder Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. S.Sravalthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing lor the respondents. With their consent, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner liled the present Writ Petition seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to process the registration and release the pending Gift Deed dated 06.08.2025 bearing Document No.P.731 of 2025 under Memo dated 14.08.2025 uide No.318 of 2025 in respect of plot admeasuring 2OO Sq.Yards in Plot No.231-G/North Part, in Biock-G, 1n Sy.No.364, situated at Tellapur Village & Municipalitlz Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, is contrary Lo G.O.Ms.No.2B, Municipal Administration and Urban 1 2 Development (P1g.lll) Department, dated 20.0 2025, issued by' the Governme,n, of Telangana, as illegal and ar I trary.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner furt t,:r submtts that the impugnecl Refusal Order No.25 of 2025 kLterl 06.08.2025 passed by respondent No.3 is based on the irr-.;Lr-uctions issueC by the Commissioncr ard Inspector General ot l?egistration ald Starnps, TeJangana uide Memo No.G2/ :;7 l2Ol9 dated 26.O8.2O2O, where it is mentioned as under: "'the Plots ore paft of Lctgout not duly approued I I the competent outhority srrr:h rz.s (iHMC, HMDA, D'ICP, etc.. 'l'he ounershttp i.s su.pporled. bg lhe registered t, lk clocumenls moking ualLd ctncl Latuful title. The properlg c ,scnbed in the current document does not satisfg either of these r,tena. It lacks boLh the requtred lagout approual and any re.fere <::.: to registered link documettt thal could establish the chain of titk '

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner furt t,:r submits that the reasons mentioned in the present Writ Pe itior-r with rega_rd to the link documents is .llready considered l,r' this Court in W.P.No.8556 of 2025 on 10.04.2025 directi:: thc respondent autl-rorities therein to receive and registe. the sale deed presented by the petitioners therein in respr ot of the subject plots without reference to the letter dated 02.01.2008 issued by respondent No.2 therein with regard to refusal of registration.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that, as per G.O.Ms.No.28, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg.lll) Department, dated 20.O2.2025' at paragraph No.3 of the Arnertdments, it is stated that any unregistered plots which are forming part of an unauthorized layout wherein lOo/o ol plots were already sold through registered sale deed on or before 26 'O8.2O20, irrespective of whether such owners have applied under LRS-2020 or not, shall be permitted for registration with the competent Sub- Registrar, duly collecting the layout regtilarization chargcs and pro-rata open space charges as mandated. The details o[ such plots shall be collected in the prescribed format by the sub- registrar and transmitted to the LRS portal for processing under these rules. In spite of that the registering authority, without coliecting the requisite layout regularization charges and pro- rata open space charges, passed the refusal order. Therefore, Iearned Counsel requested to allow the Writ Petition by directing 4 the respondeni authorities to receive and rr.; ster the subject document bt::rring pending clocument No.p -:l I of 2O2S and release the sanre in pursuance of the G.O.Ms, l,lo.2g, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (pl r III) Department, dated 20.O2.2O.25 issued by the Government o .,lelangana.

6. On the other hand, iearned Assistant Gr,r.:rnment pleader for Stamps ar-rd Registration has not disputer he submissions made by the lerarned Counsei for the petitior :r n.ith regard to the disposal .] w.p.No.B556 of 2025 dated ro.o4.2o2s and subrnitted that the petitioner, without makin,l any application for the layour regular-ization (LRS_2020) as p :r. G.O.Ms.No.2g, Municipal Arlnrinistration and Urban De\,, i,)pment (plg.lll) Department, rLLted 2O.O2.2O25, approached the respondent authorities for :.egistration of the pending do, r-,rrleot, as such, the respondent authorities rejected the docurr .nt presented by the petitioner. Ilowever, if the petitioner com( .i lorward to pay the requisite l-ee as per the rules contemprater n the aforesaid G.O., the respondent authorities will considr l the same and _) 5 pass orders as per iaw and requested to pass appropriate orders.

7. After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, this court is of the considered view that the objections raised by the registering authority with regard to linked documents is considered by this Court in W'P'No'8556 of 2025andpassedordersonlo.04.2025ar,'dtherelevantportion of the said order reads as under: "4.Thc relevant portion of thc order in W P'No'1631O of 2O19 and baLch dated 1 l.Ol -2023 is as under:

13. The power of thc registering authority to refuse registration is only, if any of the grounds or objections that ari enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules made thereunder in particular Sections 1g,20,21, 22-A, 34,35 and rule 58 of the Telangana Rules undcr the Registration Act, 1908, are existing in respect of any such document presented for the registration trxcept, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the p.ovLio.t" ol the Registration Act, 1908, the registering aul-horities 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 rcspective documents is a validated and an unregistcred document. By looking into a validity of the link clocu-ment, lhc registering authority is indirectly verifying $,hether lhe exccutants of the respective documents are having valid title or noL to execute the documents in questLn. As held in the above referred judgment in the case of D.. Y^dt, Ramesh Naidu (1 supra), the registering authority is not entitled to go inlo lhe title of the parties to 'l 6 the documcnt. It is a settled lar,"' that thc vr document s.iil not get a better titlc tha-n his case if venclor is not hitving a valid title ovc u,'hich is thc subject mattcr of a particular r vendee un<lcr the said <locument does not gcl such prop<:rtv and merr: registration of such not have lin cffect on the property u,hrch I ma tter of tl'rc said docu ment.

14. As rightly conceded by thc Icarncr Pleader for SLamps and Registration, tl- authoritics arc not cntitled to refuse regi document iln mere ground that thc title of thc the respcctivc documcnt is based upon document, though thc samc is compulsoril document cannot be accepted and such zr available to thc rcgistering authorities to rcfu of a documcnt on that ground. r rlee under a r: ndor zrnd in l-re property ,:unrcnt, the irnv title ovcr . r:ulner-rt u,ill the su bj ect (iovernment ' registering , ration of a ,. <ecutants of he' r.alidatcd r-egrsterable ',lund is nof ( reg,istratjon

19. In thc light of the above, this Court is nlhesitant to hold that thc respondcnt rcgistcring autho ties are not entitled to rcfuse registration o[ a documenl r I thc ground that the link documcnt rel'errcd to in t rr:spective document is a validated document or to refu r r-egistration of such document by placing rcliance on rrdorsement, dated 02.01.2008, issued by thc Comn-:;sLoner and Inspector (ieneral of Stzrmps and Registration .\ccordingly, the impugrred orders in the respective Writ Irc Ltions are sct aside and Writ Petitions are allowcd u,ith a fur -rc.r direction to the respondent registering authoritics r, r.eceive the returned documents ancl to process the same lrject to the condition of the said docume nts compl) j r11 r,ith the provisions o[ thc Registration Act, 1908 zrr I thc Indian Stamp Act. I t199."

5. In .I(, Gopi's case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Sup :;ne Court held as under: "The registcrtng officer is not concernerl held by thc cxecutant. I{e has no adjudicar decide rvhcthcr the exccutant hzrs anv titl( executant cxecutes a sale deed or a lease ir land in rcspcct of whir:h he has no title, 1. officer cannot refuse to registcr the docurn, procedural compliances arc made and the ncr duty as u'cll as registration chargcs/fee arc I .iirh the title rr \ po\\,e r [o liven if an r r:spect of a r: reqistering 'r t if all the ':,sarv stamp , ric[. We may /' 1 note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or RegisLering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which hc is seeking to transfer. Once the rcgistering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subiect 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 execu[ant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.

8. In view of the submissions made on either side and by following the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.8556 of 2025 dated 1O.O4.2025 and G.O.Ms.No.28, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg.lU) Department, dated 20.O2.2025, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to receive and register the subject document presented by the petitioner uide pending document No.P.73 I of 2025 dated 06.08.2025 tn respect of the subject property,without reference to the Memo No.318 of 2025 dated

14.08.2025 issued by respondent No.3 with respect to the intimation of refusal of the pending Document No.P.73 1 /2025, and subject to condition that the petitioner has to pay the requisite charges as per G.O.Ms.No.28, Municipa-l 8 Administration and Urban De',,elopment (pl ttl) Deparrment, dated 2O.O2.2O25 and the said document cr ntplving ivith thc provisions of thre Registration Act, 1908 and tre Indian Stamp Act, 1899. AIso, the respondcnt authorities rre at liberty to pass appropriate orders, if they have arry r,l.rjection, by dul.,.. assigning reasons in support ol such decision r td communicate the said decision to the petitioner. It is mzr :. cLear that this Court has not expressed aly opinion on merit , of rhe case as to the entitlement of the petitioner to get the rltject document registered. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaleous pet r ions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition,shall also stand close l SD/ P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSiISTANT REGISTRAR -- -1 //TRUE COPY// ('\ siqrroru oFFrcER To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 The Principql Secretary, Revenue Department (Stamps rrrd Registration), Secretariat, The State of Telangana, llyderabad. The District Registrar, Sanga Reddy District. at Sanga Ft ,,1dy. The Joint Registrar-ll, S.R.O, Patancheru (R.O), Sanga tr-.ddy District One CC to SRI RAVINDER REDDY MUPPU Advocate I()PUCI Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION I oh Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies PVL BS - l.,i: i Ll. | /ll.!t n:2- HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 ORDER WP.No.28295 ot 2025 '',' '\. i \:. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q \Lt IL