ORDER : K.SARATH, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.5 in passing the refusal order No.39/2025 dated 17.03.2025 basing on the letter issued by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 on 23.01.2025 vide letter No.E1/4478/2024, as forwarded by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.5 vide a Memo No.1417/2025 dated 03.02.2025 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently sought to set aside the refusal order in respect of plot Nos.15 and 15-A, admeasuring to an extent of 200 and 100 Sq.Yards respectively, situated in Sy.No.36/11, Phase II, situated at Vinayaknagar Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Gopanapally Village, Sherilingamapally Mandal (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’). 2 . Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Srikanth Satari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents. 3 . The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has purchased the subject property vide registered sale deed No.1139/2024, dated 08.02.2023 and presented the sale deed before the respondent No.5 for registration. It was initially registered as pending Document No.14/2023 and thereafter refused to register the sale deed vide refusal order No.8/2023 dated 16.02.2023 basing on the letter issued by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 in letter No.E5/2825/2021 dated 10.06.2021 as the subject property is listed under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The very said letter was challenged in W.P.No.16109/2024 by one Dasari Rama Murthy and the said writ petition was disposed of on 19.07.2024 directing the registering authorities to register the subject property without reference to the letter No.E5/2825/2021 dated 10.06.2021. Questioning the refusal order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3328/2025 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 06.02.2025 directing the respondents authorities to register the document presented by the petitioner as the said writ petition is covered by the orders passed by this Court on WP No.16109/2024. Questioning the refusal order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3328/2025 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 06.02.2025 directing the respondents authorities to register the document presented by the petitioner as the said writ petition is covered by the orders passed by this Court on WP No.16109/2024. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in WP No.3328/2025 the petitioner presented the subject document, however, the respondent No.5 refused to register the said document on the ground that the respondent No.3 issued another letter to respondent No.2 on 03.02.2025 in Memo No.1417/2025, wherein just the number and date of Memo is changed but the context of the said Memo dated 10.06.2021 is repeated in text in the Memo dated 23.01.2025 which is nothing but an attempt to overreach the orders passed by this Court in WP Nos.16109/2024 and WP No.3328/2025 and sought a direction to the respondent authorities to receive, register and release the subject document presented by the petitioner without reference to the refusal order No.39/2025 dated 17.03.2025. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions placed reliance on the following Judgments: 1. K. Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740 2. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another Vs. D. Narsing Rao & Others (2015) 3 SCC 695 3. Sirigiri Poonamma Vs. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Registration and Stamps), Secretariat, Hyderabad Unreported Judgment of this Court (DB) in WP No.3777 of 2025 dated 10.02.2025 5 . The learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.3 would submit that as per Khasara Phanai for the year 1954-55, the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.460.07 guntas, situated in Sy.No.36, situated at Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is the Government land and classified as ‘Chinna Kancha Sarkari” and therefore the said property was included in the list of Prohibitory Property under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, to avoid any transactions over the said land. Subsequently, in the year 1960-61 an extent of Ac.140.10 guntas was assigned to various persons and Laoni Izafa was granted through Faisal Patta during the year 1961-62 in favour of the assignees and names of the assignees were brought on record in Pahani for the year 1962-63 and as per the conditions of the said pattas the assigned lands are heritable but not alienable. The purchasers of the assigned lands have converted the Government land into plots in contravention of the conditions of assignment and provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, as such the said lands are liable for resumption under the above Act. 6. The learned Government Pleader would further submits that as per Pahani for the year 1963-64 of Gopanapally Village, it is evident that an extent of Ac.5.01 guntas in Sy.No.36/A/11 has been assigned to one Smt.Saleena, who had sold the said land in favour of others through GPA holder Sri D.Narsing Rao. The then Deputy Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer have resumed the said lands in Proc.No.B/2545/2003 and hence the said land vested with the Government. In order to protect the interest of Government land and to avoid any illegal transactions, as per the directions of this Court in W.A.Nos.343/2015, 232/2012 and 352/2013 dated 23.12.2015 and the official- respondents have included the subject lands in the prohibitory property under Secton 22-A (1) (b) of the Registration Act, 1908 in the earlier letters and also latest letter vide No.E1/4478/2024 dated 23.01.2025. Upon which the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District has issued Memo to Sub-Registrar, Serilingamapally along with other Sub-Registrars vide Memo No.1417/2025 dated 03.02.2025 communicating the list of prohibited property sent by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 7. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that, with regard to subject property is concnered, one D.Narsing Rao, G.P.A Holder of original assignee of Smt.Saleena has sold out the subject land admeasuring to an extent of 100 Sq.Yards in plot No.15/A, in Sy.No.36/11 in favour of Ramchander Rao vide Registered Deed No.499/1985 dated 29.01.1985 and also another extent of 200 Sq.Yards in Plot No. 15 in Sy.No.36/11 in favour of one Rajaiah vide registered Sale deed No.599/1985 dated 29.01.1985, who in turn have sold the land in favour of the M/s.Magna Developers, represented by its Managing Partners through registered sale deed No.9678/2016 dated 30.07.2016 and 9766/2016 dated 30.07.2016 respectively. Now, the petitioner has presented the Sale Deed document in respect of the subject land admeasuring to an extent of 300 Sq.Yards and presented before the Respondent No.5 for registration but the same has been refused based on the letter issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to the Commissioner & Inspector General, Stamps and Registration vide letter No.E1/4478/2024 dated 23.01.2025. 8. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that, the subject land in question is part and parcel of the Government land in Sy.No.36/A/11 of Gopanapally Village, Serilingamapally Mandal, which was resumed back by the then Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal as the original assignee Smt.Saleena has sold out the same in contravention of the Rules prescribed under T.S. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 and hence the Registrar, Serilingampally has rightly refused to process the registration presented by the petitioner as the same is Government land and there are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. The learned Government Pleader in support of their contentions relied on the following Judgments: 1. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another Vs. D.Narsing Rao and others (2015) 3 SCC 695 2. Ahmed Awad Bakhrayba Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad Unreported Judgment (DB) Passed by this Court in WA No.219 of 2008 dt. 25.09.2023 3. Revenue Divisonal Officer, Chevella Division & and others Vs. Mohd.Sayeed Ather & others , Judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.1918-1922 Dt.02.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 10. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is questioning the impugned refusal order No.39/2025 dated 17.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.5 on the ground that the subject property is in the prohibitory watch register as the entire Survey No.36 of Gopanapally Village is Government land as communicated by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy vide letter No.E1/4478/2024 dated 23.01.2025 and the same was forwarded by the Respondent No.4/District Registrar, Ranga Reddy vide letter No.1417/2025 dated 03.02.2025. 11. 11. The contention of the petitioner is that earlier when the respondent authorities have refused to register the document in respect of the subject survey number presented by some other person, in respect of the property in Sy.No.36/11 of Gopanapalli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, on the similar letter, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner vide WP No.3328 of 2025 and the said writ petition was allowed on 06.02.2025, directing the Registering Authority to receive, register and release the subject document presented by the petitioner therein, without reference to the impunged refusal order. In spite of the same, again the Registering Authority refused to register the document presented by the petitioner and the same is arbitrary and illegal. 12. Further contention of the petitioner is that, Survey No.36/11 of Gopanapalli Village is not in the prohibitory list as per the letter No.E1/4478/2024 dated 23.01.2025 issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy. In spite of the same, the respondent authorities, without verifying the same, refused to register the document presented by the petitioner. 13. On the other hand the contention of the Respondents is that, entire Survey No.36 of Gopanapalli Village is in the prohibitory watch register and the vendors of the vendor of the petitioner namely Smt.Saleena was assigned Government land to an extent of Ac.5.01 guntas in Sy.No.36/A/11 and the same was sold by her in favour of various persons through GPA Holder in contravention of the conditions of assignment and provisions of A.P.Assinged Lands (Prohibiton of Transfers) Act, 1977 and in view of the same, the said land was resumed back vide Proc.No.B/2545/2003 and thereby the said property belongs to the Government. 14. On perusal of the impugned refusal proceedings, there is no mention about the resumption of the subject land of Smt.Saleena, vendor of the vendors of the petitioner. Only by filing counter, the respondent authorities have stating the same. In the earlier round of litigation also the respondent authorities have not raised this issue before this Court. In view of the same, the respondent authorities cannot improve their case by filing counter, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M.S.Gill Vs. the Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405 15. The Judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in K. Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and others (supra 1) squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. the Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405 15. The Judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in K. Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and others (supra 1) squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is as under: “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. 16. As per the contention of the respondents, an extent of Ac.5.01 guntas of land in Survey No.36/A/11 was assigned to Smt.Saleena, Vendor of the vendors of the petitioner, but the petitioner is claiming the land in Sy.No.36/11. There is no specific boundaries are mentioned by the District Collector in the prohibitory list with regard to the property claimed by the petitioner. In view of the same, if the respondents wants to evict the petitioner from the subject property, they can proceed as per the procedure contemplated under law. Without doing so, the respondent authorities cannot declare that the property claimed by the petitioner is Government land. In the letter No.E1/4478/2024 , dated 23.01.2025 addressed by the District Collector, there is no mention about the survey number 36/11, but mentioned as Sy.No.36/A/11 and other Sub-Divisions. Without doing so, the respondent authorities cannot declare that the property claimed by the petitioner is Government land. In the letter No.E1/4478/2024 , dated 23.01.2025 addressed by the District Collector, there is no mention about the survey number 36/11, but mentioned as Sy.No.36/A/11 and other Sub-Divisions. In view of the same, the registering authorities cannot refuse to register the document presented by the petitioner on the ground that the subject property is in the prohibitory watch register. 17. In view of the above finding, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impunged refusal order No.39/2025 dated 17.03.2025 and the Registering authorities are directed to receive, register and release the subject document presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Indian stamps Act, 1899 without reference to the impunged refusal order. It is made clear that, if the registering authority has other objection, they are at liberty to pass appropriate order recording the reasons and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is also made clear that this order does not preclude the respondent authorities from evicting the persons who are in possession of the land in Sy.No.36/A/11 of Gopanapally Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in contravention of Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, by following due procedure. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.