##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

WRIT PETITION No.40470 of 2025

Dated 21^st April, 2026.

Between:

Kaithi Srinivas Reddy … Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

(Stamps & Registration), Revenue Department,

Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad,

Hyderabad, and others … Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare and set aside the

impugned refusal order No.9 of 2025, dated 02.12.2025 and intimation

order communicated through letter No.485/SRO/2025, dated 12.12.2025,

by respondent No.4 refusing to register the sale deed of the petitioner vide

pending document No.P-166, dated 02.12.2025, in respect of the open

land admeasuring 5203 Sq. Yards or 4349.70 Sq. Mtrs. in survey No.60

Part situated at Karmanghat Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, under GHMC

Saroornagar circle, Rangareddy District (in short ‘the subject property’) as

illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908,

and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and

2

PK, J

W.P.No.40470 of 2025

consequently, to direct respondent No.4 to register and release the sale

deed presented by the petitioner.

2) Heard Sri Gandyadapu Rajesham, learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, appearing on

behalf of the respondents.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason assigned

for not registering the sale deed presented by the petitioner, i.e., non-

availability of validly registered link documents, is wholly unsustainable in

view of the common order passed by this Court dated 11.01.2023, in

W.P.No.16310 of 2019 & batch, as well as the recent decision rendered by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar, 12025 SCC OnLine SC 740. Therefore,

learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned refusal

order dated 02.12.2025 is liable to be set aside.

4) The above made submissions are not seriously disputed by the

learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the

respondents.

5) A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the sole basis for

refusal of the sale deed presented by the petitioner is the non-availability

of registered link document. In this connection, it is apposite to refer to

3

PK, J

W.P.No.40470 of 2025

the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Gopi (supra), and the

following is a relevant excerpt of the said decision:

“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 he has no title, the

registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the

procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well

as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the

scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or

Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the

property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority

is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and

the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making

procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be

registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect

of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If

the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the

registered document cannot effect any transfer.”

6) Similarly, in its common order dated 11.01.2023 in W.P.No.16310 of

2019 and batch, this Court has held as under:

“13. The power of the registering authority to refuse registration is only,

if any of the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the

provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules made

thereunder in particular Sections 19, 20, 21, 22-A, 34, 35 and rule 58

of the T