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

2. This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in refusing to receive, register and release the sale deed dated 10.6.2026 presented by the petitioner in respect of house bearing No.5-70/4 and portion of house bearing No.5-70/37 on Plot Nos.61 and 62 and 63 part, total admeasuring 475 sq.yards in Sy.No.43, plinth area 190 sft., with ACC sheets, situated at Alwal village, Medchal-Malkajgiri district as arbitrary and illegal.

3. Heard Sri S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the subject property from one Sri Ravuri Vijay Prabhakar under sale deed dated 18.5.1995 for a valuable sale consideration. Accordingly, sale deed was executed on 18.5.1995 conveying the subject property in favour of petitioner and due to financial crisis and other family related issues, petitioner could not present the sale deed for registration within the stipulated period of 120 days as required under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Thereafter, petitioner presented the document before respondent No.2 on 4.8.2025 for impounding of the document, however, since there was no response, petitioner filed W.P.No.24129 of 2025 before this Court and this Court while disposing of the writ petition, directed the respondent No.2 to impound and fix stamp duty of the document. In pursuance of the same, petitioner paid the stamp duty for validation of the document and got the document validated vide File No.8083/IMP/2025 dated 12.2.2026. Now, the petitioner with an intention to sell the subject property in favour of Smt.Maganti Sasi Rekha, basing on the validated document, and executed sale deed by paying stamp duty and registration fee amounting to Rs.6,45,682/- and booked a slot on 12.6.2026 and presented the document for registration, but however, the respondent No.3 has refused to register the same on the ground that the link document is a validated document and not a registered one.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.1.2023 and also recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar(2025 SCC Online SC 740) and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition also.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not disputed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 is 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.”

8. In K.Gopi’s case (1 supra), 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.”

9. In view of the above, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub Registrar (supra) and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.1.2023 and in terms thereof, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to receive, register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property, subject to the condition that the said document complies with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, subject to payment of LRS as per G.O.Ms.No.28, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg.III) Department dated 20.12.2025, if required, as per law.

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