##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

WRIT PETITION No.9280 of 2026

Dated 30^th March, 2026.

Between:

Gudise Balakrishna and another.

… Petitioners AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat,

Hyderabad, and 2 others.

… Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“…to declare the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the Intimation of Refusal vide Refusal Order No.8 of 2026 dated 10.03.2026 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and to the order passed by the Honble Apex Court in K. Gopi Vs. The Sub- Registrar and orders passed by this Honble Court in WP. Nos.4836 of 2026, 14136 of 2023 and 39960 of 2025 and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to register and release the sale deed (P.No.126/2026) dated 13.02.2026 presented by the Petitioners in respect of land admeasuring 1165 Sq.Yards or 974.08 Sq. Mts in Survey No.1 of Maztha

2 PK, J

W.P.No.9280 of 2026

Sikanderguda Village (Near Hyderaguda from the route of Tippu Khan Bridge), within the limits of Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without reference to Refusal Order No.8

of 2026 dated 10.03.2026 and pass…”

2. Heard Sri S.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their

consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at admission stage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. No.16310 of 2019 & batch and also the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The SubRegistrar1, the first reason assigned in the impugned order cannot be sustained. Similarly, having regard to the order dated 02.07.2024 in W.P. No.15471 of 2024, the other reason assigned in the impugned order cannot be sustained. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of the above said orders, the impugned Refusal Order dated 10.03.2026 is liable to

be set aside.

4. The above made submission is not seriously disputed by

learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

1

2025 SCC OnLine SC 740

3 PK, J

W.P.No.9280 of 2026

5. A perusal of the record reveals that the registration has been

refused on the following two grounds:

I. On verification of the document it is noticed that, there is no registered Link Document bearing Sy. No.563/4A and 12025 SCC OnLine SC 740 3 563/4B of 20 guntas and 20 guntas situated at Medipally (PM) village Revenue Shivar and the Principal submitted that the document is open place bearing Sy. No.563/4A and 563/4B admeasuring 2420 Sq.yards Situated at Medipally (PM) village Revenue Shivar

of Ramagundam mandal of Peddapalli District.

II. the Commissioner and Inspector General (R&S) Department Memo.No.G3/3247/2018 Dated: 01.05.2019 has instructed that whenever huge lands showing in square yards and sought to registration the Sub Registrar invariably refer Web land (Dharani portal) and find out the real owners as per revenue records and insist upon NALA conversion certificate of agriculture land into non agriculture land issued by the competent authority. There is no any NALA conversion certificate and as per the G.O.Ms.No.118 Revenue (Registration) Department, dated 28.10.2020, the Tahsildars are appointed as Joint Sub Registrar to register

the agriculture lands.

6. Insofar as the objection taken by the authority as to non- availability of registered link document is concerned, it is apt to state that in K.Gopi’s case (supra 1), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as

under:

“The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which h