The registering authority has no power to verify property title; refusals must be legally justified and based on procedural compliance.

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. 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