IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the grounds for refusal of registration must align with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and should not be based on invalid reasons.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking an order, more particularly, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Refusal Order vide Order No.81/2023/RO(OB), dated 25.04.2023, passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set-aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent to receive and register the Sale Deed that was executed in favour of the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior counsel who argued on behalf of Sri M.Srinivas, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, Sri B.Dileep Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, who is representing Respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri S.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 and Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5.

3. Stating that the basis for refusal to register the Sale deed is unlawful and without any basis, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the subject property i.e., the land admeasuring Ac.3.13 guntas which is equivalent to 16,093 Sq.yards, which is located in Sy.No.87/2 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, is declared as surplus land and a Panchanama was also conducted. Learned counsel states that the vendors of the petitioner, thus, have got valid right and title over the subject property. Learned counsel states that the vendors of the petitioner intended to sell the said property and the petitioner agreed to purchase. A Sale deed was executed to that effect and it was presented for registration. But the said document was kept pending. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, thereafter, filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No. 12810 of 2023 and at the time of hearing of the said Writ Petition, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration informed the Court that the document has been refused and therefore, the petitioner withdrew the said Writ Petition as it became infructuous.

4. Learned counsel states that the reasons assigned in the impugned order of refusal are false and have no basis. The Registering Authority, without following the procedure under the Registration Act, without verifying the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings, has passed such an order and therefore, the same is unjustifiable. Learned counsel also states that the power granted to the Registering Authority to refuse registration is only on limited grounds and the Registering Authority exceeded the power granted and refused to register the document and therefore, challenging the order of refusal, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned counsel, thereby, seeks to order the Registering Authority to receive the subject document, register and release the same.

5. The submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration is that in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.78, 80 to 93, Surplus land area and Retainable land area were notified. The land to an extent of Ac.12.00 guntas in Sy.No.87 fell under Retainable land area from out of the total extent of Ac.20.29 guntas and accordingly, sub-division sketch was prepared and retainable area in Sy.No.87 was earmarked. The Sub-division was made as Sy.No.87/2 in an extent of 48,562 Sq.mts. and the surplus land area was taken over by the Government. The declarants were granted absolute rights over the retainable land of Ac.12.00 guntas in Sy.No.87/2 of Kondapur Village. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration states that on verification of records, it was found that an extent of Ac.10.23 guntas was already alienated by the legal heirs of Chintala Pochaiah. Learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that the Registering Authority has verified all the relevant documents and passed a reasoned order by which the document was refused for registration and thus, the present Writ petition is not maintainable.

6. The submission of Sri S.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4, is that the alleged vendors of the petitioner hav