High Court · 2025

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in refusing to register the document through lntimation of Refusal order No.73l20h, dated 07 -08-2023 i ., t in respect of Pending Document No.17712023, dated 01-08-2023 submitted by the petitioner to register the sale deed in respect of the PIot No.377 admeasuring 200 sq.yards in Sy.No.208, 2O9, 21O, 211, 212,213,214, 215 and 217, situated at Abdullapur Village, Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal (Erstwhile Hayathnagar Mandal) Ranga Reddy District, on the ground that the link document is an unregistered document, being illegal, arbilrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300- A of the Constitution of ilndia apart from being violative of principles of naturat justice and consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondent No.3 to register and release the document/s presenteJ by the petitioner. t' lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 15'1 CPC praying that in the cir( umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rlay be pleased to suspend the lmpugned lntimation of Refusal order No.7312023 daled 07 -08-2023 issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of Pending Documenl 11o.17712023, daled 01-08-2023 and thereby directing the 3rd respondent to fcrthwith register and release the said docufi{ents, pending disposal of the writ petiti rn. :. I Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FCrFI STAMPS AND 1 REGISTRATION The Court made the fottwingr-ORDER l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.3O447 of 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

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.No.16310 of 2Ol9 and batch dated 11.01.2023 and a-lso recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi Vs The Su$-Registrarl and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration has not disputed the subrnissioir made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated L7.O1.2023 is as under: r2025 SCC OnLinc SC 740 2 \ .". i - "13. 'I'he l)ower of the registering authority to refr,;e reglstration is onl), if any of the grounds or objections that are enurltrilted under the provisions of Ihc Ileglstration Act, 1908, and the Rules m.cl(r th(reunder in p.rrtrcular Se(tions 19,20,21,'22-A,31,35 and rule 5E rf the'lclangana Rules nndcr thc Iicgistration Act, 1908, are existing in r,rs prct (,I anJ' such document presenled for the registration. Except, the groJ rc s or objections that are cnurnerated under the provisions oI the Registrar ion Act, 1908, the registering arrthorities have no authority to refus€ r€Slistriltion of a documcnt on an-\' other ground. As already noted abo.r. the ground on s.hich the impugned refusal orders in all these batch oI \rrrit Pr:titions are passed is that thc link document shorvn in the respectiv, tlocuments is a r';rlidatcd and an unregistered document. By looking inlo a val:(litl oI lhc link document, the registering authority is indirectly veril;i .tg whethcr thc cxccutants of thc respective documents are having vali I litlc or not to cxc(:ute the documents in question. As held in the above r:f,:rretl jttdgment in lhe case of I)r. Yadla Ramesh Naidu (1 supra), the reqistering authoritv is not entitlc(l to go into the title of the parties to the c ot'r.tmr:nt. It is a s{.ttlc(.l la\\, that lhc vendec undcr a document $'ill nor Et t a l)etter title than his venclor :rnd in case if vendor is not having a ',,r lil title over the propert_v rvhich is the subject matter oI a particular docurncnt, the vendee undcr thc sard document does not get any title over such propertr and mere registr.rlion of such document q,ill not have an effec on tlrc propcrtv r\'hrch is the subjcct matter of the said document.

14. As fightly conceded by the learned Governn crt [']eader for the registering authorities ar, not entitlcd to Starnps and Rc€iistration, rcfusc rcgistration of a document on mere ground thar lhe litlc of the exccutants ol the respective document is based upor the "'aliclated clocument, though the same is compulsorily registerable . o lumenI can]rot bc acccpted and such a ground is not available to he legistcring authoritics t() rcfuse registration of a document on that gr( und.

19. In the light of the above, this Court is unhesitarr tc hold that the rcspondent registering authorities are not entitled to refu ie regrstration of a documcnt on the ground that the link document relerred to in the rcspcctivc do(:umcnt is a vahdated document or to refrt.e registratron oI srrr:h documcnt l)y placing reliance on endorsement, (k t(,d O2.01.2008, issuccl by thc (lommissioner and Inspector General oi Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the respcctive Writ ,*,h 3 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 o[ the Registration Act, 1908 and the [ndian Stamp Act, 1899."

5. In K.Gopi's case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: f \ "The registering ofhcer is not concerned rvith the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide rn hether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect o[ rvhich he has no tit]e, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document it 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 thc 1908 Act, it is not the function oI the Sub Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property rvhich he is seekinB 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, iI dny, that the executant. possesses. [f the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot elfect any transler. t

6. In view of the order passed in W.P.No.163 10 of 2Ol9 and batch dated 1l.Ol.2O2;3 and also the Judgment of the Hon'l:le Supreme Court in K. Gopi's case (supra 1) and for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to receive, register ancl release the sale deed dated O1.O8.2023 uide I 4 P.No.177 12023, presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property, without reference to the intimation of Refusa-l Order No.73l2023 dated 07.O8.2023, subject to coqdition of the said document complying with the provisions under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Incian Stamp Act,

1899. There shail be no order as to costs. Miscellaleous petitions, if arry pending 1n this writ petition, shall stand closed. Sd/.C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .t'('-? IiECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// The Princioal Secretary, Department of Revenue (SlamFS and Registration) Secretarnl Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad, State of Tel'artgana The District Registiar, Ranga Reddy Diskict . . ^. . The Sub-Reqislrar, Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy D-rstr'cl onl -c-C id" 6cr'i" oi ron srnrrlp-slr.ro r{EcisrCnrloN, Ili(ih court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies to sht PAPAIAH PEDDAKU LA; Advocate [oPL C ] To 1 2 3 4 r, PSK. PMK HIGH COURT DATED:1 111112025 ORDER WP.No.30447 ot 2024 -'.a.- ,,\1F-.114/- (: (l' q -) t,3 :te iloI lE () t - sp,l rct'. '-a '.O DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOI.JT COSTS q