Telangana High Court
Sri Likki Laxma Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 4 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.15323 OF 2026
4TH MAY, 2026
Between:
Likki Laxma Reddy
...Petitioner
AND
State of Telangana,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department,
Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad,
and (3) others.
... Respondents
ORDER:
With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in kept pending document No.31/2026 dated 29.4.2026 vide Refusal Order No.7/2026 dated 29.4.2026 in respect of plot No.218 forming part of Sy.Nos.585, 586, 589 and 590, an extent of 300 sq.yards situated at Pedda Amberpet village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy district as arbitrary and illegal.
2
3. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the subject property from one Gummi Krishna Reddy by paying valuable consideration. However, when the petitioner approached respondent No.4 for registration of the sale deed, the same was initially kept pending vide document P.No.31/2026 and subsequently vide impugned order dated 29.4.2026, respondent has refused to register the sale deed, which is wholly unsustainable in view of the common order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.1.2023 and also recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar 1 and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition also.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not disputed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
1 2025 SCC Online SC 740 3
6. A perusal of the impugned refusal order dated 29.4.2026, discloses that the registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner was refused on the following reasons:
(1) This is a Sale deed consisting of plot No.218, admeasuring 300 sq.yards in Sy.Nos.585, 586, 589 and 590 situated at Pedda Amberpet village, Abdullapurmet Mandal under Nagole Circle within the limits of Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation, Ranga Reddy district.
As seen that the schedule property has been acquired by the vendor through a validated sale deed vide File No.1698/ER/V1/1995 dated 25.1.1995 by the District Registar, Ranga Reddy, T.G. (2) According to the information of the C&IG (R&S), issued in circular Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 29.12.2020, it has been instructed not to register which has no registered document to link. In this case, since there is no registered link document and also in view of the fact that the validated document cannot be treated as registered document, hence, the registration of pending document No.31/2026 SRO Pedda Amberpet is hereby refused".
7. In this context, it is to extract the relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023, which is as under:
"13. The power of the registering authority to refuse registration is only, if any of the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules made thereunder in particular Sections 19, 20, 21, 22-A, 34, 35 and rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, are existing in respect of any such document presented for the registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the registering authorities 4 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 documents is a validated and an unregistered document. By looking 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. 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 property and mere registration of such document will not have an effect on the property 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 02.01.2008, issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the respective Writ Petitions are set aside and 5 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 Indian Stamp Act, 1899."
8. In K.Gopi's case (1 supra), 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 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 officer 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 has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied 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
9. In view of the above, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub Registrar (supra) and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.1.2023 and in terms thereof, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to receive, register and release the pending document bearing P.No.31/2026 presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property, without reference to the Intimation of Refusal bearing No.7 of 2026 dated 29.4.2026, subject to the condition that the said document complies with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It will be open to the Registering Authority to refuse the document presented before him, if he has any objection, duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and communicate the said decision to the petitioners. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case as to the entitlement of the petitioners to get the subject document registered. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date: 4.5.2026.
Note: Issue C.C. tomorrow. (b/o) DA