A registering authority lacks the adjudicatory power to verify or decide the title of the executant or resolve contractual disputes regarding property apportionment; registration must be granted if procedural compliances are met and fees are paid.

ORDER

Heard Sri N.Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. With their consent, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking to declare the impugned refusal Order No.90/2023/RO(OB) in Lr.No.870/RO(OB)/2023 dated 10.05.2023 passed by respondent No.3-Joint Sub-Registrar-I vide Pending Document No.P.254/2023 in respect of Flat bearing No.502 on the 5th floor, Siri Signature Apartment, Block-G with built up area of 1570 Sq.feet including common amenities and 80 Sq.feet of car parking together with undivided share of land admeasuring 48 Sq.yards (out of 868.5 sq.yards) constructed on Plot Nos.35, 36, 37 and 38 in Sy.No.27, situated at Guttala Begumpet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for brevity, “subject property”), as illegal and arbitrary.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in order to develop the subject property, the petitioner entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney vide DGPA Doc.No.18073/2013 dated 13.12.2013 with M/s. Sahiti Constructions after obtaining permission from Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vide Permit No.4142/HO/WZ/Cir-12/2015 dated 20.04.2015 for construction of residential building named ‘Siri Signature’.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after completion of the said construction, the petitioner wanted to gift flat bearing No.502 on the 5th floor to his daughter. Accordingly, the petitioner executed a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of his daughter on 15.04.2023 for registration before the respondent No.3. Despite keeping the said document pending, the respondent No.3 refused to register the same on the ground that ‘without consent of the developer and apportionment of flats between the landowner and developer, which creates contractual disputes between developer and owner’.

Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo vide WPUSR.No.140556/2025 dated 05.12.2025 with regard to additional material papers and submitting that basing on the same Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney vide DGPA Doc.No.18073/2013 dated 13.12.2013, the respondent authorities registered the sale deeds presented by the developer in his share vide document bearing Nos.7535/2015 dated 12.06.2015, 7976/2015 dated 27.06.2015, 9564/2015 dated 30.06.2015, 8764/2015 dated 17.07.2015, 9565/2015 dated 30.07.2015 and 1945/2019 dated 06.02.2019. Being the landowner, the petitioner wanted to gift Flat No.502 on the 5th Floor of the said building to his daughter and there is no dispute with regard to the title of the subject property. However, the respondent authorities refused to register the document presented by the petitioner vide impugned refusal order No.90/2023/RO (OB) dated 10.05.2023 and the same is illegal and arbitrary.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi Vs The Sub-Registrar¹2025 SCC OnLine SC 740 and submitted that the registering authority has no power to decide the title over the subject property.

Learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned refusal order No.90/2023/RO(OB) dated 10.05.2023 and directing the respondent authority to register and release the document bearing No.P.254/2023 presented by the petitioner in the light of the above said Judgment.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, basing on the oral instructions, submits that there is no clarity with regard to the consent of the developer and apportionment of flats. In view of the same, the respondent authorities rejected to register the document presented by the petitioner basing on the ground that ‘without consent of the dev