ORDER : Heard Sri P. Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Akhil Munnuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is disposed at the stage of admission itself. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.3 in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal bearing Appeal No.46 of 2024 vide order dated 28.12.2024 filed under Section 72 of Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, “the Act, 1908”), which was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 25.09.2025 through speed post and also Refusal Order No.02 of 2024 dated 25.05.2024 passed by respondent No.4 in respect of subject land, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the refusal order dated 25.05.2024 passed by respondent No.4 is based on two grounds, which are extracted hereunder: “1. As it is observed that as seen in admeasuring there is large extent with 24,321 Sq yards as per the layout but the layout not approved by any competent Authorities". 2.As per the C & IG, (R&S) Dept Memo No. G3/3247/2018 dt:01.05.2019 whenever huge lands are shown in Sy. yard is, the Sub-Registrar shall invariably refer webland (Dharani) and find out the real owners as per the Revenue Records and insist upon conversion Certificate of Agricultural land into non-agricultural land issued by the competent authority. Further, on the verification of the Dharani web records the Pattader names are not matching with the survey numbers mentioned in the Schedule of property.” 4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the said issue was already considered by this Court in W.P.No.16005 of 2024 dated 02.07.2024, wherein similar orders were passed regarding to the payment of NALA conversion charges. In the present case, the petitioner has paid to an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- on 25.11.2023 towards the conversion of the land from agricultural to non- agricultural vide SBI Challan No.(ATRN)7822919775517 and the same is pending for consideration before the competent authority. 5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that aggrieved by the refusal order dated 25.05.2024 passed by respondent No.4, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 under Section 72 of the Act, 1908. 5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that aggrieved by the refusal order dated 25.05.2024 passed by respondent No.4, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 under Section 72 of the Act, 1908. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 28.12.2024 on the ground that it was filed beyond the stipulated period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of the refusal order, i.e., the petitioner received the refusal order on 14.06.2024 and filed the appeal on 27.09.2024. It is further submitted that the respondents neither served nor communicated the refusal order to the petitioner and it was received only when the petitioner’s representative one Sri K.Bhadra Reddy, obtained a copy of the order on 12.09.2024 and the petitioner filed the appeal within one (1) month thereafter. Despite the same, the respondents rejected the said appeal filed by the petitioner without showing the attachment of communication or orders received by the petitioner, which is arbitrary and illegal. Further, the refusal order passed by the respondent No.4 is contrary to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.16005 of 2024 dated 02.07.2024. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 mentioning the discrepancies between the Dharani web portal and the record of pattadar, where the names do not match the survey numbers mentioned in the Suit Schedule Property. In fact, the suit filed by the vendors of the petitioner was decreed in their favour by the competent Civil Court in respect of the subject property. The registering authority has no power to verify the title of the parties as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub- Registrar , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740 . In view of the same, learned Senior Counsel prayed this Court to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2024 passed by the respondent No.4 and consequential order dated 28.12.2024 passed by the respondent No.3 7. In view of the same, learned Senior Counsel prayed this Court to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2024 passed by the respondent No.4 and consequential order dated 28.12.2024 passed by the respondent No.3 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents, basing on the written instructions issued by the respondent No.3, submits that in so far as the alleged improper acceptance of conversion charges is concerned, the Sub-Registrar merely acknowledged the Appellant’s payment made through a valid challan and as per procedure, the obligation to obtain the requisite NALA Certificate lies solely with the parties concerned and the Sub-Registrar’s acted in accordance with the law. It is further submitted that the Sub-Registrar has provided adequate reasoning for refusal, in accordance with the instructions issued by higher authorities and there is no legal obligation to elaborate further on the discrepancies noted during the review of records. Therefore, refusal order issued due to discrepancies in the executant’s name in the survey numbers and the petitioner’s failure to produce the NALA certificate was justified. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration did not dispute the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner with regard to the order of this Court in W.P.No.16005 of 2024 dated 02.07.2024 and in view of the same, requested this Court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 9. After hearing both sides and upon perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that, in the instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the refusal order dated 25.05.2024 passed by respondent No.4, whereby registration of the document presented by the petitioner in respect of the suit schedule property was rejected on two grounds, namely; (i) the petitioner approached the respondents without undergoing Nala conversion proceedings and (ii) the names of the Pattadars are not matching with the survey numbers mentioned in the schedule of the property. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents neither served nor communicated the copy of the impugned refusal order dated 25.05.2024 to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner obtained a copy of the said impugned order only on 12.09.2024. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents neither served nor communicated the copy of the impugned refusal order dated 25.05.2024 to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner obtained a copy of the said impugned order only on 12.09.2024. In view of the same, the petitioner immediately filed an appeal on 27.09.2024, however, the said appeal was dismissed by the respondent No.3 on the ground of delay that the petitioner had not filed the said appeal within a period of one (01) month from the date of the impugned refusal order dated 25.05.2024. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied on the orders of this Court dated 02.07.2024 in W.P.No.16005 of 2024, wherein the operative portion of the said order is as follows: “With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Registering Authority to receive, register and release the subject document, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order without insisting for the proceedings of NALA Tax under the provisions of the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for non agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. It is also open to the Registering Authority to refuse to register the subject document, by specifically assign the reasons in terms of Section 71 of the Act, 1908 and communicate the said decision to the petitioner. It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall pay the Nala tax as per the provisions of The Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 as and when demanded by the appropriate authorities under the said Act.” 12. In the instant case also, the petitioner is seeking to register the subject land after payment of requisite charges, without formation of any layout. However, the petitioner intends to pay the registration charges on a per square yard basis, and therefore, the ratio laid down in the above-referred case squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 13. In the instant case also, the petitioner is seeking to register the subject land after payment of requisite charges, without formation of any layout. However, the petitioner intends to pay the registration charges on a per square yard basis, and therefore, the ratio laid down in the above-referred case squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 13. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities, while examining the title of the petitioner, have assigned the second reason for refusal on the ground that there is a discrepancy with regard to the pattadar names, which are not matching with the survey numbers mentioned in the schedule property and the said issue had been earlier considered by the competent Civil Court, in which a decree was passed in favour of the vendors of the petitioner. It is contended that the registering authority has no power to verify the title of the parties, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar (cited supra), and the relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “15. 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.” 14. 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.” 14. The above findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would also squarely apply to the facts of the instant case, as the respondent No.4 refused to register the subject document on the ground of discrepancy in the title. In view of the same, the impugned refusal order passed by the respondent No.4 is liable to be set aside. Further, the respondent No.3, without considering the relevant provisions of law and merely basing on the ground of delay, has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained, as the respondent No.3 failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law. 15. In view of the above findings, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2024 vide Refusal No.02 of 2024 passed by respondent No.4 and consequential order dated 28.12.2024 passed in Appeal No.46 of 2024 by the respondent No.3. Further, the Registering Authority is directed to receive, register and release the pending document No.P.86/2023 presented by the petitioner, subject to compliance of the provisions under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamps Act, 1899 without insisting for the proceedings of NALA Tax under the provisions of the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for nonagricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall pay the Nala Tax as per the provisions of The Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 as and when demanded by the appropriate authorities under the said Act. 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. 16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.