IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH Date: 04.12.2025 Between:

Ranabothu Rajasekhar Reddy …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others.

…Respondents

ORDER

Heard Sri Yadaiah Boddupally, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the entire material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3-Sub‑Registrar, Huzurnagar, in not implementing the proceeding issued by respondent No.4-Commissioner, Huzurnagar Municipality, vide Lr.No.G1/02/HZNR/2023 dated

15.03.2024, whereby the registering authority was requested to stop registration of documents in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2-01 guntas in Sy.No.702/A4, situated at Govindapuram, Huzurnagar Mandal, Suryapet District (for brevity, “the subject property”), said to be executed by the respondent No.5, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for brevity “the Act, 2019”).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.684/1, 697/A2, 695 and 702 of Govindapuram village and that his lands are accessed through a pathway next to land in Sy.No.702/A4 belonging to respondent No.5. While it being so, the respondent No.5, without obtaining layout approval from the competent authority and without conversion from agricultural to non‑agricultural use, has formed a residential layout in the subject property, divided the land into plots to sell the same to the third parties and in the process, obstructed the petitioner’s pathway to his fields.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.4 initially addressed a letter vide No.G1MCHNR/2024 dated 11.03.2024 to respondent No.3 expressing no objection for registration of plots in the subject property and requesting deletion of the said survey number from the prohibited list. However, basing on the petitioner’s representation dated 14.03.2024 pointing out the alleged unauthorized layout and obstruction of access, the respondent No.4 is said to have issued a further letter dated 15.03.2024 vide Lr.No.G1/02/HZNR/2023 to the respondent No.3, requesting stoppage of registrations and sale agreements in the unauthorized layout in the subject property. In spite of the same, the respondent No.3 is entertaining the documents presented by respondent No.5 for registration in respect of the subject property, therefore, learned counsel requested this Court to allow the Writ Petition by directing the registering authority not to receive or register any document presented by respondent No.5 in respect of the subject property, in view of the letter dated 15.03.2024.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, basing on the counter filed on behalf of respondent No.3, submits that the registration of documents is governed by the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, “the Act, 1908”), and that refusal of registration is possible only for properties covered by Section 22‑A or by specific orders of competent courts or authorities, as per Standing Order No.219(b) of the Registration Manual. Further, no documents have been submitted or registered by respondent No.5 before the respondent No.3 and even if the respondent No.5 presents the documents for registration, the respondent No.3 cannot refuse the documents orally and has to pass orders as per the provisions of the Act, 1908. The letter of the respondent No.4-Municipality, by itself, does not create any legal bar for the respondent No.3- Sub‑Registrar to stop all registrations in a particular survey n