sIN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION NO.7669 OF 2026 Dated 12^th March, 2026 Between:

M/s. Vishwakarma Infra … Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration & Stamps), Secretariat, Hyderabad and (3) others …Respondents

ORDER:

With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at admission stage.

2. Aggrieved by the action of the 4^th Respondent i.e., Sub- Registrar, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District, in refusing to register and release the Sale Deed, presented by the petitioner bearing Pending Document No. P.91/2026 dated 31/01/2026, vide Refusal Order dated 18/02/2026, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Srawanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, appearing for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Mrs. Naseem Unnisa Begum and (10) others, along with the consenting parties, executed a Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the land admeasuring an extent of 5082 Sq.yards in Survey No. 86/part, situated Neknampur village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and presented the same before the 4^th respondent i.e., Sub-Registrar, Gandipet, on 31.01.2026, for registration, duly paying the requisite stamp duty and registration charges to a tune of Rs.52,00,000/-. The said document was kept pending vide Document No. P.91/2026, and subsequently, vide impugned order dated 31.01.2026, the 4th respondent refused registration of the said document, on the ground that NALA conversion proceedings were not produced and the Pattadar names of the vendors were not reflected in the Bhu Bharathi Portal, and impugned refusal order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, as the Registration Act, 1908, does not mandate production of NALA conversion proceedings as a condition precedent for registration of a conveyance document.

5. It is further submitted that in view of the order dated 11.01.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 & batch and also the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar, 12025 SCC OnLine SC 740, as well as the order dated 02.07.2024 in W.P.No.15471 of 2024, the reasons assigned in the impugned order cannot be sustained. Therefore, learned counsel contends that the impugned Refusal Order dated 18.02.2026 is liable to be set aside.

6. The above made submissions are not seriously disputed by the learned Government Pleader.

7. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent authorities have refused for registration of the subject document on the following three grounds:

I. No Nala conversion proceedings from the Competent Authority as per the instruction of C&IG Memo No. g3/3247/2018, dated 01/05/2019 and also Pattedar names (vendor) are not reflecting in Bhoobharathi Web portal.

II. No new pass Books & title deed for establishing their ownership under 6 (D) of ROR Act.

III. No valid link document pertaining to the property claiming ownership rights.

8. Insofar as the objection taken by the Registering Authority with regard to NALA conversion proceedings is concerned, the said issue has already been dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.15471 of 2024, wherein, this Court has deprecated the practice of the Registering Authority in refusing the register the document without understanding the purport of the earlier orders of this Court. The Court has further observed that the Registering Authorities are unable to decipher the Court orders and also admonished the Sub- Registrars in insisting for Court orders on settled issues and disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions:

“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