ORDER : K. Sarath, J. These Writ Petitions are filed questioning the action of the respondent No.4/Joint Sub Registrar-I, RO(OB), Ranga Reddy District in refusing to register and release the Sale vide Deeds, which are kept pending as Pending Documents P.No.932/2022, 931/2022, 933/2022, 937/2022, 939/2022, 927/2022, 928/2022, 930/2022, 926/2022, 935/2022, 938/2022, 936/2022, 940/2022, 934/2022, 925/2022, all dated 26.08.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “subject documents”), presented by the petitioner, by issuing vide Intimation of Refusal Orders refusal order Nos.127/RO(OB)/2022, 126/RO(OB)/2022, 128/RO(OB)/2022, 132/RO(OB)/2022, 134/RO(OB)/2022, 122/RO(OB)/2022, 123/RO(OB)/2022, 125/RO(OB)/2022, 121/RO(OB)/2022, 130/RO(OB)/2022, 133/RO(OB)/2022, 131/RO(OB)/2022, 135/RO(OB)/2022, 129/RO(OB)/2022, 120/RO(OB)/2022, all dated 22.09.2022, respectively (hereinafter referred to as “impugned refusal orders”) as illegal and arbitrary and sought a direction to the respondent No.4 to register and release the subject sale deeds presented by the petitioner. 2. Since the petitioner and the respondents, subject lis property and the involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, all these Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 3. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the Writ Petitions and Smt.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 4. The learned Counsel for the sole petitioner submits that originally one Late Ramakistaiah was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.21.27 guntas, in Sy.No.56, situated at Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. After death of said Ramakistaiah, his legal heirs namely Veeraiah, Rajamallaiah, Prabhakar and vide Venugopal partitioned the said property partition deed No.443/1963 and got mutated their names in the revenue records. Out of the total extent of land, the legal heirs of Ramakistaiah have sold part of land to various persons and now left only Ac.7.00 guntas. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that N.Venugopal, vendor No.1 of the petitioner is the only surviving son of late Rama Kistaiah and vendor Nos.2 and 3 of the petitioner are the sons of Venugopal. Nimmala Veeraiah, son of Late Ramakistaiah died intestate on 29.09.1992 leaving his only son Nimmala Srinivas Goud and the said Srinivas Goud also died intestate on 04.12.2011 leaving vendor Nos.4 and 5 of the petitioner as his legal heirs. Nimmala Veeraiah, son of Late Ramakistaiah died intestate on 29.09.1992 leaving his only son Nimmala Srinivas Goud and the said Srinivas Goud also died intestate on 04.12.2011 leaving vendor Nos.4 and 5 of the petitioner as his legal heirs. Another son of Ramakistaiah, namely Nimmala Raja Mallaiah also died intestate on 19.09.1999 leaving behind his only son, namely Nimmala Dhan Raj and he also died on 23.11.2007 leaving behind his son, i.e. vendor No.6 of the petitioner as his legal heir. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the vendors of the petitioner, due to their personal necessities have offered to sell the property to the petitioner in different parts with specific boundaries and accordingly, the vendors of the petitioner have executed different sale deeds and presented the same before the respondent No.4 for registration, but he refused to register the said documents on the ground of C&G Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 26.08.2020 and 29.12.2020 and Memo No.G3/3247/2018 dated 01.05.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 and Intimation of Refusal Orders respectively dated 22.09.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petitions are filed. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as seen from the sale deeds, the petitioner intends to purchase only parts on Square Yard basis with definite boundaries out of the total extent of Ac.7.00 Guntas of land, situated in Sy.No.56 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal (hereinafter referred to as “subject property”), but the registration is not in the nature of plot, therefore the question of layout permission from GHMC does not arise. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no bar under any statute, much less Registration Act, 1908 that part of the land from a bigger extent cannot be subject matter of a Sale Deed for the purpose of registration. Thus, the grounds mentioned in the ultra vires impugned refusal orders are to the provisions of the Registration Act, which contemplates refusal of registration only in respect of enumerated categories of documents as specified in Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The reasons contained in the impugned refusal orders do not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 22-A of the Act. 9. The reasons contained in the impugned refusal orders do not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 22-A of the Act. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned refusal orders were issued by the respondent authorities mainly on two grounds, relying on Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 26.08.2020 and 29.12.2020 and another ground is that the petitioner has not obtained NALA conversion order for registration of the documents presented by the petitioner. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 29.12.2020, the respondent authorities have to register the subject documents presented by the petitioner as the subject vide property was already registered Partition Deed No.443/1962 dated 29.12.1962 and in view of the same, the registering authorities cannot refuse to register the subject documents presented by the petitioner and the same can be registered as per Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 29.12.2020. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that with regard to the issue of NALA conversion, in a similar case, this Court already considered and disposed of W.P.No.15741 of 2024 on 02.07.2024 and the direction of the said order squarely apply to the facts of this case and in view of the same, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested to allow all these Writ Petitions by setting the impugned intimation of refusal orders and by directing the respondent authorities to register the documents presented by the petitoner. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relied upon the following order: (1) Sri Chintapatla Kondal Rao Vs. State of Telangana , Order of this Court in WP No.15471 of 2024 dt.02.07.2024 13. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.4, submits that the documents presented by the petitioner were refused on the ground that the schedule plots are carved out without any approval from GHMC and hence the registration of an unauthorized plots are prohibited under C&IG Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 26.08.2020 and 29.12.2020. 14. 14. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that this Court passed common orders in W.P.No.328 of 2022 and its batch dated 18.02.2022, modified by order dated 22.02.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in W.P.No.2985 of 2022 and the said orders directed the respondent authorities to register the subject document therein without reference to the above Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 26.08.2020 and 29.12.2020, subject to the outcome of SLP (Civil) No.19695 of 2021. vide Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, its interim order dated 18.05.2022 in SLP (Civil) No.19695 of 2021, suspended the operation of the orders passed by this Court, therefore restoring the applicability of C&IG Memo No.G2/257/2019, which prohibits registration of unauthorized layouts. Further, the refusal orders were also based on the Memo No.G3/3247/2018 dated 01.05.2019 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General (R&S), which mandates reference to Dharani Portal for identifying ownership and insists upon submission of conversion certificate (NALA) in cases of agricultural lands being converted for non-agricultural purposes and the parties failed to produce the requisite NALA Certificates. 15. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that SLP (Civil) No.19695 of 2021 is still pending and the interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18.05.2022 in SIA(C)No.19695 of 2021 suspends the High Court orders passed in W.P.No.9248 of 2021 on which the present reliefs are based. 16. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that permitting registration of the subject documents in unauthorized layouts directly violates the departmental policy and is contrary to the statutory compliance and there are no merits and in view of the same, requested this Court to dismiss the Writ Petitions. 17. At the time of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner filed additional documents and a certified copy of the Partition Deed bearing document No.443/1962 dated 29.12.1962, which is a registered document in respect of the vide subject property and the same was taken on record order dated 23.12.2025. 18. After hearing both sides and on a perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is questioning the impugned refusal orders dated 22.09.2022 which were issued by the respondent No.4. 18. After hearing both sides and on a perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is questioning the impugned refusal orders dated 22.09.2022 which were issued by the respondent No.4. The said orders were issued on two grounds i.e., (i) the scheduled plot is carved out without any approval from the GHMC and therefore, the registration of an unauthorized plot vide is prohibited C&IG Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 26.08.2020 and 29.12.2020 and (ii) the petitioner has not obtained NALA conversion order for registration of the subject documents presented by the petitioner. 19. The contention of the petitioner in the writ affidavit is that the Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 29.12.2020 does not apply to the instant case, but at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the said documents filed by the petitioner are in consonance with the Memo dated 29.12.2020 and the reasons mentioned by the Registering authority with regard to the pendency of the SLP pertaining to the Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 26.08.2020 and 29.12.2020, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case and in view of the same, the impunged refusal orders are liable to be set aside. 20. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 29.12.2020 is in favour of the petitioner as the subject property was acquired by the vendors of the petitioner through registered Partition Deed vide document No.443/62 dated 29.12.1962. The relevant portion of the Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 29.01.2020 reads as under: “2) In order to obviate any hardship relating to registration of documents, after careful consideration of the relevant provisions of law and circumstances, the following clarifications are issued, in partial modification of the instructions cited under reference above: i) Registrations can be taken up in respect of open plots/structures, if the same has been acquired by the present owner through a valid registered document earlier. ii) However, no "new plot" shall be registered unless it has been approved by the competent authority or is in an authorized layout. New plot would mean a fresh plot which is being brought for registration for the first time or being sold by developers for the first time. iii) As clarified earlier, there is no restriction on registration of plots in authorized layouts, plots regularized under earlier LRS Schemes and buildings/structures covered under earlier BPS/BRS Schemes.” 21. New plot would mean a fresh plot which is being brought for registration for the first time or being sold by developers for the first time. iii) As clarified earlier, there is no restriction on registration of plots in authorized layouts, plots regularized under earlier LRS Schemes and buildings/structures covered under earlier BPS/BRS Schemes.” 21. In the instant case, the vendors of the petitioner have acquired property through Partition Deed bearing Document No.443/62 dated 29.12.1962 and once the Partition Deed was registered by the registering authority and as the vendors of the petitioner have succeeded the property through registered document, the same is in consonance with Clause 2(i) of the Memo No.G2/257/2019 dated 29.12.2020 and in view of the same, the respondent authorities cannot refuse to register the subject documents presented by the petitioner. 22. With regard to the payment of NALA conversion, this Court considered the said issue in Sri Chinthapatla Kondal Rao (supra), which was disposed of on 02.07.2024, and the said contention was not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration. The operative portion of the said Order reads as under: “19. 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”. 23. In view of the above circumstances, the impunged refusal orders dated 22.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.4-the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy are illegal, arbitrary and the same are liable to be set aside. 23. In view of the above circumstances, the impunged refusal orders dated 22.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.4-the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy are illegal, arbitrary and the same are liable to be set aside. In view of the same, the respondent authorities have to register the pending documents presented by the petitioner, without reference to the refusal orders dated 22.09.2022. 24. In view of the above findings, these Writ Petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned refusal orders respectively, dated 26.08.2022. Consequently, the respondent authorities are directed to register, release the pending documents in respect of the subject property, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899 without insisting for the proceedings of NALA Tax under 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 documents, if there are any other objections, duly assigning reasons and communicate the same 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. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the title or entitlement of the vendors of the petitioner to get the subject documents registered. 25. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed. No order ass to costs.