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

               “… to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not registering the Sale deed in respect of Residential Plot No.240, admeasuring 333.33 Sq. yds, in Sy.No.74/6, situated at East Marredpally, Secunderaabad Cantonment, Secunderabad, Telangana, as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to register the Sale deed presented by me pertaining to Residential Plot No.240, admeasuring 333.33 Sq. yds., in Sy.No.74/6 situated at East Marredpally, Secunderaabad Cantonment, Secunderabad Telangana and release the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Mr. K. Sudershan, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner purchased plot No.240 admeasuring 333.33 square yards in Sy.No.74/6, situated at East Marredpally, Secunderabad Cantonment, Telangana, from M/s.Balamarai Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Secunderabad, vide sale deed, dated 07.11.1985, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. 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 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 petitioner submitted that land in Sy.No.74 of East Marredpally is reflected 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 L.G.C.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 the 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 in 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 petitioner submitted that the subject property is in Sy.No.74/6 and the said survey number is covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.19106 of 2010. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the orders passed by learned Single Judges of this Court in W.P. Nos.9601 of 2017, dated 24.09.2024, and 1512 of 2021, dated 26.06.2025, 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 submits that the subject property in Sy.No.74/4 is part of the order of W.P.No.19106 of 2010.

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

8. Petitioner purchased a plot bearing No.240 admeasuring 333.33 sq. yards in Survey No.74/6 of East Marredpally, vide a registered sale deed dated 07.11.1985. 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 land and not Government land. 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. Petitioner claims that the subject property is in Survey No.74/6. Perused the orders passed by learned Single Judges of this Court in W.P. Nos.9601 of 2017, dated 24.09.2024, and 1512 of 2021, dated 26.06.2025, it is observed that similar subject matter was dealt with by learned Single Judges.

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 orders of the learned Single Judges, this Court deems it appropriate that writ petition be disposed of directing the respondent No.3/Sub-Registrar to receive, register and release the document presented by petitioner in respect of the subject property, without reference to L.G.C.No.167 of 1997, subject to petitioner 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 document presented before him, if there is any objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and communicating a copy of the said decision to the petitioner. The office of Sub-Registrar is accordingly directed to receive, register and release the deed as directed above.

14. It is made clear that mere registration of the document does not confer title in respect of the subject property. 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. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.