1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

               “ … pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.3 while refusing to receive and register the Sale Deed, Dated 10.06.2026 presented by the Petitioners in respect of entire building on H.No.10-3-32/9/67, 10-3-32/9/67/1, 10-3-32/9/67/2, 10-3-32/9/67/3, 10-3-32/9/67/4 and 10-3-32/9/67/5 consisting of Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor, admeasuring 266 sq. yds (including Car, Two Wheeler Parking, Terrance and Common Areas) on Plot No.67, forming part of Sy.No.74/8, situated at Nehru Nagar, East Marredpally, Secunderbad as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to receive and register the Sale Deed, Dated 10.06.2026 presented by the Petitioners pertaining to the above property thereby to release the same in accordance with law and pass such other and further orders...”

2. Heard Mr. G.Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are the owners and possessors of houses bearing Nos.10-3-32/9/67, 10-3-32/9/67/1, 10-3-32/9/67/2, 10-3-32/9/67/3, 10-3-32/9/67/4 and 10-3-32/9/67/5, consisting of Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor, admeasuring 266 sq. yds., (including Car, Two Wheeler Parking, Terrance and Common Areas) on Plot No.67, forming part of Sy.No.74/8, situated at Nehru Nagar, East Marredpally, Secunderbad. It is further submitted that registration of the documents in Sy.No.74, Marredpally, was declared as opposed to public policy under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, under the Gazette Notification No.269, dated 19.06.2000. That the notification was issued on the basis of the proposal of the District Collector, Hyderabad, vide letter No.C3/1712/2004 and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.609, Revenue (Regn-I) Department, dated 18.08.2004.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that land in Sy.No.74 of East Marredpally is described as patta land in pahanies and the said land was purchased by eight societies and layouts were formed in the year 1976 and individuals purchased the said property as plots. It is further submitted that Government claims this land to be a Government land and filed LGC No.167 of 1997 before the LGC Tribunal. The Tribunal on 18.03.2011 held that Government does not have any right over the property. It is further submitted that the matter was carried to High Court, and this Court, in W.P.No.19106 of 2010, (decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 28.05.2025), upheld the order of LGC No.167 of 1997 and held that petitioner therein failed to establish the right and title to the subject property in Sy.Nos.74/2 to 74/13 of Marredpally Village and Sy.No.844/1 of Malkajgiri Village.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the subject property is in Sy.No.74/8 and the said survey number is covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.19106 of 2010. Learned counsel invited attention of this Court to the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3317 of 2026, dated 04.02.2026, wherein a similar subject matter was dealt with, and therefore, similar orders be passed in this writ petition also.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondents submitted that the subject property in Sy.No.74/8 is part of the order of W.P.No.19106 of 2010.

7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.

8. Petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of houses bearing Nos.10-3-32/9/67, 10-3-32/9/67/1, 10-3-32/9/67/2, 10-3-32/9/67/3, 10-3-32/9/67/4 and 10-3-32/9/67/5, consisting of Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor, admeasuring 266 sq. yds., on Plot No.67, forming part of Sy.No.74/8, situated at Nehru Nagar, East Marredpally, Secunderbad. A Gazette Notification No.269, dated 19.06.2000, was issued on the basis of proposal of District Collector, Hyderabad, vide letter No.C3/1712/2004 and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.609, Revenue (Regn-I) Department, dated 18.08.2004. Registration of documents in Sy.No.74, Marredpally was declared as opposed to public policy under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.

9. It is not in dispute that land in Survey No.74 was claimed as Government land and a case was filed before the Tribunal bearing LGC No.167 of 1997, by an order dated 18.03.2011, Tribunal held that the subject property in Survey No.74 and other subject properties to be patta lands and not Government lands. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19106 of 2010 upheld the order passed by the Tribunal i.e., lands in Survey Nos.74/2 to 74/13 of Marredpally Village and Survey No.844/1 of Malkajgiri Village.

10. Petitioners claim that the subject properties are in Survey No.74/8. Perused the orders passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3317 of 2026, dated 04.03.2026, it is observed that similar subject matter was dealt with by learned Single Judge.

11. It is the duty of registering authority to receive the document presented before him and see whether the document is registerable or not in accordance with law and it is open to him to refuse the document presented before him, if he has any objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such decision.

12. In Gopi v. Sub Registrar and Others((2026) 2 SCC 696), the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.18 and 19 held as follows:

               “18. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executants. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executants 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.

               19. 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 exeuctant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.”

13. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the order of the learned Single Judge, this Court deems it appropriate that writ petition be disposed of directing the respondent No.3/Sub-Registrar to receive, register and release the documents presented by petitioners in respect of the subject properties, without reference to L.G.C.No.167 of 1997, subject to petitioners complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is open to the registering authority to refuse the documents presented before them, if there is any objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and communicating a copy of the said decision to the petitioners. The office of Sub-Registrar is accordingly directed to receive, register and release the deeds.

14. It is made clear that mere registration of the documents does not confer title in respect of the subject properties. Needless to state that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

15. With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.