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

2. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in issuing Intimation of Refusal bearing No.44 of 2026 dated 06.08.2026 in respect of Open Land in Plot No.5, forming part of Survey No.94, admeasuring 876 square yards (out of 13,310 square yards), situated at Neknampur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, within the limits of Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Narsingi Circle, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

3. Heard Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. No.16310 of 2019 & batch and also the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar (2025 SCC OnLine SC 740), the first, second and fourth reasons assigned in the impugned order cannot be sustained. Similarly, having regard to the order dated 02.07.2024 in W.P. No.15471 of 2024, the other reason assigned in the impugned order cannot be sustained. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the above said orders, the impugned Refusal Order dated 06.08.2026 is liable to be set aside.

5. The above made submission is not seriously disputed by learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

6. A perusal of the record reveals that the registration has been refused on the following grounds:

               “1. The land admeasuring Ac.2.30 gts., in Sy.No.94 of Neknampur Village is said to have been acquired by way of succession in the name of Shiv Pershad @ Pandit Shiv Pershad Jit Bajpai, S/o. Late Pandit Laxman Pershad Ji Bajpai. As per verification of Bhubharathi records names of parties are not reflected and title of the executants is not established.

               2. The executants have not produced any registered Agreements of Sale in favour of consenting parties.

               3. The executants had not furnished NALA conversion proceedings from the Competent Authority as required by C&IG Memo No.G3/3247/2018, Dated : 01/05/2019.

               4. The scheduled land is not in the approved layout of the competent authority. Though the executants claim that the plot is regularized under LRS scheme, no proceedings have been produced except receipt of partial payment.”

7. Insofar as the objection taken by the authority as to non-availability of registered link document is concerned, it is apt to state that 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.”

8. Similarly, in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 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 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.”

9. In view of the above principle of law, it is thus clear that the Registering Authority is not entitled to go into the title of the parties to the document. Therefore, the first, second and fourth grounds assigned in the impugned refusal order cannot stand to the scrutiny of the Court.

10. Insofar as the objection taken by the Registering Authority is with regard to NALA conversion proceedings. Said issue has already been dealt with by this Court in W.P. No.15471 of 2024 wherein the following order has been passed:

               “19. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Registering Authority to receive, register and release the subject document, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order without insisting for the proceedings of NALA Tax under the provisions of the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for nonagricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. It is also open to the Registering Authority to refuse to register the subject document, by specifically assign the reasons in terms of Section 71 of the Act, 1908 and communicate the said decision to the petitioner. It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall pay the Nala tax as per the provisions of The Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 as and when demanded by the appropriate authorities under the said Act.”

11. In that view of the matter, the third reason assigned in the impugned refusal also cannot be sustained.

12. For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Registering Authority to register and release the pending document No.P.580/2026 presented by the petitioner, without reference to the impugned Refusal bearing No.44 of 2026 dated 06.08.2026 issued by respondent No.3, subject to compliance with the provisions under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899, without insisting for the proceedings of NALA Tax under the provisions of the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for non-agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. It is also open to the Registering Authority to refuse to register the subject document, on any other reasons, by specifically assigning the reasons and communicate the said decision to the petitioner. It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall pay the NALA Tax as per the provisions of The Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, as and when demanded by the appropriate authorities under the said Act.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.