Damuluri Tejaswini vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 100 Tel

Telangana High Court

Damuluri Tejaswini vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2026

   IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                   AT HYDERABAD

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                  WRIT PETITION No.9169 of 2026
                        Dated 26th March, 2026.

Between:

Damuluri Tejaswini
                                                                ... Petitioner
                                    AND

The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad, and (3) others.
                                                             ... Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondent No.4

in refusing to register the pending document bearing P.No.1151 of 2025, in

respect of the land in Plot No.209/1/part, admeasuring 200 sq.yds. (out of

492 sq.yds.), Plot No.210/1/part, admeasuring 111 sq.yds., (out of 388

sq.yds.), both in Sy.No.333, and Plot No.238/part, admeasuring 200

sq.yds., (out of 450 sq.yds.), in Sy.No.364, Block-G, total admeasuring 511

sq.yds., (out of 1330 sq.yds), situated at Tellapur Village and Municipality,

Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, (for short, 'the subject

property'), vide impugned refusal order No.65 of 2025 dated 25.11.2025.

PK, J

2. Heard Sri M. Durga Prasad, learned counsel, representing

Ms. Sureddy Priyanka, learned counsel for the petitioner, and

Ms. S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and

Registration, appearing on behalf of the respondents. With their consent,

the writ petition is taken up for disposal at admission stage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had

purchased the subject property from one Mr. Valla Hanumantha Rao, by

paying valuable consideration, and accordingly, possession, in favour of

the petitioner, was also delivered. However, when the petitioner

approached respondent No.4 for registration of the Sale Deed, the same

was initially kept pending vide document No.P.1151 of 2025, and

subsequently, vide impugned order dated 25.11.2025, respondent No.4

has refused to register the sale deed, on an alleged ground of non-

availability of registered link documents, which 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 1. It is also

submitted that as per paragraph 3 of the amendments issued in

G.O.Ms.No.28, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg.III),

dated 20.02.2025, any unregistered plots, which are forming a part of an

12025 SCC OnLine SC 740

PK, J

unauthorized layout, wherein, 10% of plots were already sold through

registered sale deed on or before 26.08.2020, irrespective of whether such

owners have applied for LRS-2020 or not, shall be permitted for

registration, duly collecting the layout regularization charges and pro-rata

open space charges as mandated. As such, the other ground for refusal,

i.e., the subject plots are divided into parts, in violation of the Memo dated

26.08.2020 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General (R&S),

Telangana, is also unsustainable. It is also submitted that in similar

circumstances, this Court has passed orders dated 10.04.2025 and

17.10.2025 in W.P.No.8556 of 2025 and W.P.No.31506 of 2025,

respectively. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to

direct respondent No.4 to register and release the sale deed presented by

the petitioner.

4. The above made submissions are not seriously disputed by learned

Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

However, it is submitted that the petitioner had approached respondent

No.4 for registration without any application for layout regularization (LRS-

2020) as per G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 20.02.2025, and therefore, respondent

No.4 has refused registration of the subject document.

PK, J

5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner expresses

readiness to pay the requisite fees as per G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 20.02.2025

for regularization of the subject plots.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly submits that the

respondent authorities will consider the case of the petitioner, as and

when the petitioner pays the requisite fees prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.28

dated 20.02.2025, and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

7. A perusal of the impugned refusal order dated 25.11.2025, discloses

that registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner was refused

on the following two reasons:

"In the Document there is no mention of link-Document. The party stated to have purchased through an unregistered Sale Deed from The Industrial Employee Co-operative Housing Building Society Limited, Bandlaguda through its president V. Narayana Rao which is adjudicated by The District Registrar towards deficit Duty through File No:G2/394/2025 Dated:07-03- 2025.

Thus in the registration of this pending Document there are two points which are not complying with the instructions contained in C&IG Mail Dt:02-01-2008 with validated (un-registered and adjudicated) Document not to be treated as a link Document. Second point is the pending Document contains 3 plots bearing Nos.209/1/part; 210/1/part and 328/part divided into parts which is against the instructions contained in C&IG Memo No.G2/257/2019 Dt:26-08-2020 where it is stated that: "No New plot or Sub-divisions shall be registered by Registration Authority unless it is approved by the Authority as per the provisions of the Act".

PK, J

8. As regards the first ground for refusal, i.e., the non-availability of a

registered link document, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Gopi (supra), wherein, it is categorically held

that the registering authority is not empowered to go into the title of the

parties to a document. 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."

9. Similarly, in the 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 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

PK, J

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 refuse 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."

10. In view of the above principle of law, the first ground assigned in the

impugned refusal order cannot stand to scrutiny of this Court.

PK, J

11. Insofar as the other ground for refusal is concerned, the petitioner

has expressed willingness to pay the requisite charges as per

G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 20.02.2025, for regularization of the subject plots.

12. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing

respondent No.4 to register and release the pending document bearing

No.P1151/2025 dated 19.11.2025, presented by the petitioner in respect

of the subject property, without reference to the impugned refusal order

No.65 of 2025 dated 25.11.2025 passed by respondent No.4, subject to the

petitioner paying the requisite charges as per G.O.Ms.No.28 dated

20.02.2025, as well as subject to compliance with the provisions of the

Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899. It is open for the

Registering Authority to refuse registration of the subject document on any

other reasons, duly assigning such reasons for refusal in terms of Section

71 of the Act, 1908, and communicate the said decision to the petitioner.

It is made clear that mere registration of the document does not confer title

on the subject property and this order would not have any bearing on all

those matters where title/rights of the parties are pending, if any, before

the authorities, either in revision/appeals for adjudication, and in any

other case, this order also shall not preclude the parties in asserting their

rights before a competent Court of law.

PK, J

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall

stand closed. No costs.

_________________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 26.03.2026.

GSP