Telangana High Court
Gujja Narender vs The State Of Telangana on 25 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.12530 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration
appearing for the respondents. With their consent, this writ
petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the respondent authorities are not receiving, registering and
releasing the document filed by the petitioner in favour of
the third parties with regard to the agricultural land
admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0-28¼ guntas in Sy.No.186
situated at Jainepally Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri
Bhuvanagiri District and the same is contrary to the
provisions of Registration Act, 1908.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that on earlier occasion, the petitioner has filed a
suit in O.S.No.42 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior
Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir
SK, J
WP_12530_2025
for declaration of title and the same was decreed in favour
of the petitioner on 13.06.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner
has presented sale deed before the respondent No.5/Joint
Sub-Registrar and the same was refused to register on the
ground that the subject property has not in the name of the
petitioner in spite of the Decree passed by the Competent
Civil Court on 13.06.2024. Without a valid ground, the
Registering Authority refused to receive the document filed
by the petitioner. In view of the same, learned counsel
requested to direct the respondent No.5/Joint Sub-
Registrar to receive, register and release the document filed
by the petitioner with regard to the subject property in
accordance with law.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Stamps and Registration, basing on the written instructions
submitted by the respondent No.5, submits that the
respondent No.5 is unaware of the disposal of O.S.No.42 of
2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir on 13.06.2024
SK, J
WP_12530_2025
and stating that the before passing of the Decree in the
above said suit, one Mr.Hari Kondal being a pattedar
converted his land admeasuring Ac.04.22¼ guntas in
Sy.No.186 to non-agricultural purpose (NALA) duly
remitting the conversion fee through Dharani Portal on
dated 18.04.2024, which is much prior to the orders of the
Competent Civil Court. In view of the same, the Registering
Authority not received the document presented by the
petitioner. Therefore, there is no valid ground to entertain
the writ petition and requested to dismiss the same.
5. After hearing both sides and on perusing the
entire material on record, this Court is of the considered
view that admittedly the petitioner approached the
Competent Civil Court and filed O.S.No.42 of 2011 on the
file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir by impleading one
Mr.Hari Kondal along with eight others as defendants.
After conducting trial by the Competent Civil Court, the
Decree and Judgment was passed on 13.06.2024 in favour
SK, J
WP_12530_2025
of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner has
approached the respondent No.5/Joint Sub-Registrar by
presenting the document with regard to the suit schedule
property. The respondent No.5- Joint Sub-Registrar
refused to receive the document presented by the petitioner
on the ground that name of the petitioner was not mutated
in the revenue record as pattedar.
6. Once Competent Civil Court declared the title of
the petitioner, the Registering Authority has no power to
decide and deny the document presented by the petitioner.
Moreover, basing on the written instructions of the
respondent No.5-Joint Sub-Registrar, it clearly shows that
mere basing on the NALA conversion proceedings, the
Registering Authority refused to receive the subject
document. The Registering Authority has to receive and
register the document presented by the petitioner as per the
recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi
Vs The Sub-Registrar 1.
12025 SCC OnLine SC 740
SK, J
WP_12530_2025
7. 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 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."
The above said Judgment would squarely apply to
the instant case.
8. In view of the above circumstances, the Writ
Petition is disposed of directing the respondent
No.5/Joint Sub-Registrar to receive, register and
SK, J
WP_12530_2025
release the document submitted by the petitioner with
regard to the subject property subject to the condition
of the said documents complying with the provisions of
the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act,
1899. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date: 25.04.2025
spk
