ORDER

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

2. This writ petition is filed seeking declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in refusing to register the pending document No.P.684/2025 dated 31.10.2025 vide impugned refusal order No.45/2025 dated 21.11.2025 as arbitrary and illegal.

3. Heard Sri Lattupally Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the subject property from one K.V.V.Nageshwara Rao by paying valuable consideration. However, when the petitioners approached respondent No.3 for registration of the sale deed, the same was initially kept pending vide document P.No.684/2025 and subsequently vide impugned order dated 21.11.2025, respondent No.3 has refused to register the sale deed, which is wholly unsustainable in view of the common order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.1.2023 and also recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar, 2025 SCC Online SC 740 and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition also.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not disputed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. A perusal of the impugned refusal order dated 21.11.2025, discloses that the registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner was refused on the following reasons:

“1. The Pattadar Names (vendor) are not reflecting in Bhubharathi web portal.

2. The NALA conversion proceedings from the Competent Authority as per the instructions of C&IG Memo No.G3/3247/2018 dated 1.5.2019.

3. The Scheduled land is not approved layout from the competent authority; and

4. The LRS duties were not paid for the said land”.

7. In this context, it is to extract the relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023, which is as under:

8. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 is 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 Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, are existing in respect of any such document presented for the registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the registering authorities have no authority to refuse registration of a document on any other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which the impugned refusal orders in all these batch of Writ Petitions are passed is that the link document shown in the respective documents is a validated and an unregistered document. By looking into a validity of the link document, the registering authority is indirectly verifying whether the executants of the respective documents are having valid title or not to execute the documents in question. As held in the above referred judgment in the case of Dr. Yadla Ramesh Naidu (1 supra), the registering authority is not entitled to go into the title of the parties to the document. It is a settled law that the vendee under a document will not get a better title than his vendor and in case if vendor is not having a valid title over the property which is the subject matter of a particular document, the vendee under the said document does not get any title over such property and mere registration of such document will not have an effect on the property which is the subject matter of the said document.

14. As rightly conceded by the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, the registering authorities are not entitled to refuse registration of a document on mere