O R D E R :

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

2. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in refusing to register and release the pending Document No.P 98/2026 dated 20.03.2026 by issuing Refusal Order No.35 of 2026.

3. Heard Ms. Mohd. Mudabbir Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document (P 98/2026) presented by the petitioner pertaining to plot bearing No.43 North part category MIG – II of Vanasthalipuram Residential Complex in Sy.No.201, admeasuring 150 sq. yards out of 287 sq. yards situated at Sahebnagar, Kalan Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was refused by the respondent authorities vide impugned refusal order No.35 of 2026, on the ground that validated document cannot be considered as link document. It is further submitted that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 and also recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar, 12025 SCC OnLine SC 740 and requested to pass similar order in this Writ Petition also.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents did not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, on instructions, submits that though the impugned refusal order is passed on the ground that the validated document cannot be considered as a link document, but the subject property is included in the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as per letter dated 27.10.2025.

6. 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 ground that the title of the executants of the respective document is based upon the validated document, though the same is compulsorily registerable document cannot be accepted and such a ground is not available to th