Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1251 (TS)

Ramallakota Naresh v. State Of Telangana

2025-10-17

K.SARATH

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Muppu Ravinder Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, 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 itself. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to process the registration and release the pending Sale Deed dated 06.08.2025 bearing Document No.P.730 of 2025 under Memo dated 14.08.2025 vide Memo No.317 of 2025 in respect of plot admeasuring 500 Sq.Yards in Plot No.354-G, in Block-G, in Sy.No.342, situated at Tellapur Village & Municipality Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.28, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg.III) Department, dated 20.02.2025, issued by the Government of Telangana, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned Refusal Order No.24 of 2025 dated 06.08.2025 passed by respondent No.3 is based on the instructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana vide Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 26.08.2020, where it is mentioned as under: “The Plots are part of Layout not duly approved by the competent authorities such as GHMC, HMDA, DTCP, etc. The ownership is supported by the registered link documents that could establish the chain of title.” 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the reasons mentioned in the present Writ Petition with regard to the link documents is already considered by this Court in W.P.No.8556 of 2025 on 10.04.2025 directing the respondent authorities therein to receive and register the sale deed presented by the petitioners therein in respect 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.III) Department, dated 20.02.2025, at paragraph No.3 of the Amendments, it is stated that any unregistered plots which are forming part of an unauthorized layout wherein 10% of plots were already sold through registered sale deed on or before 26.08.2020, 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 regularization charges and pro-rata open space charges as mandated. The details of 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 collecting the requisite layout regularization charges and pro- rata open space charges, passed the refusal order. Therefore, learned Counsel requested to allow the Writ Petition by directing the respondent authorities to receive and register the subject document bearing pending document No.P.730 of 2025 and release the same in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.28, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg.III) Department, dated 20.02.2025 issued by the Government of Telangana. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration has not disputed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to the disposal of W.P.No.8556 of 2025 dated 10.04.2025 and submitted that the petitioner, without making any application for the layout regularization (LRS-2020) as per G.O.Ms.No.28, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg.III) Department, dated 20.02.2025, approached the respondent authorities for registration of the pending document, as such, the respondent authorities rejected the document presented by the petitioner. However, if the petitioner comes forward to pay the requisite fee as per the rules contemplated in the aforesaid G.O., the respondent authorities will consider the same and pass orders as per law 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 2025 and passed orders on 10.04.2025 and the relevant portion of the said order reads as under: “4. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 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 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 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.” 5. In K. Gopi’s case (supra 1), 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. 8. 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. 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 10.04.2025 and G.O.Ms.No.28, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg.III) Department, dated 20.02.2025, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to receive and register the subject document presented by the petitioner vide pending document No.P.730 of 2025 dated 06.08.2025 in respect of the subject property, without reference to the Memo No.317 of 2025 dated 14.08.2025 issued by respondent No.3 with respect to the intimation of refusal of the pending Document No.P.730 of 2025, and subject to condition that the petitioner has to pay the requisite charges as per G.O.Ms.No.28, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg.III) Department, dated 20.02.2025 and the said document complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Also, the respondent authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate orders, if they have any objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and communicate the said decision to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case as to the entitlement of the petitioner to get the subject document registered. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.