Telangana High Court
Baddam Narsimha Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.11298 OF 2026
15TH APRIL, 2026
Between:
Baddam Narsimha Reddy
...Petitioner
AND
State of Telangana,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department,
Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad,
and (5) others.
... Respondents
ORDER:
With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is
taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the
Respondent No.6 in refusing to register the document presented
by the petitioner vide Refusal order No.4/2026 dated
17.02.2026 in respect of Petitioner’s Plot No.54 admeasuring
178 Sq Yards in Survey Nos.29, 35 and 36, situated at Koheda
Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal within the limits of GHMC
2
formerly under Koheda Grampanchayath, Ranga Reddy District
as arbitrary and illegal.
3. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the
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 1 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. 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 581
2025 SCC Online SC 740
3of 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 the
registering authorities to refuse registration of a document on that
ground.
…
19. In the light of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the
respondent registering authorities are not entitled to refuse
registration of a document on the ground that the link document
referred to in the respective document is a validated document or to
4refuse registration of such document by placing reliance on
endorsement, dated 02.01.2008, issued by the Commissioner and
Inspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the
impugned orders in the respective Writ Petitions are set aside and
Writ Petitions are allowed with a further direction to the respondent
registering authorities to receive the returned documents and to
process the same subject to the condition of the said documents
complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899.”
7. In K.Gopi‘s case (1 supra), 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 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.”
5
8. In view of the above, following the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub Registrar
(supra) and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16310 of
2019 and batch dated 11.1.2023 and in terms thereof, this
writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities
to receive, register and release the document bearing
P.No.19/2026 presented by the petitioner in respect of the
subject property, without reference to the Intimation of Refusal
bearing No.4 of 2026 dated 17.2.2026, subject to the condition
that the said document complies with the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, subject
to payment of LRS as per G.O.Ms.No.28, Municipal
Administration and Urban Development (Plg.III) Department
dated 20.12.2025, if required, as per law. Miscellaneous
petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
____________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
Date: 15.4.2026.
DA
