Smt. Guduri Kalpana Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Guduri Kalpana, W/o Late Guduri Ranganath, Aged 34^years, Occ ;^Housewife, R/o H.No.5-46, Peddapavani, Lingasamudram Mandal, Mutyalapadu,^Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department^of Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

;*,,.P^.,..

¶15

The Sub- ReOi9t1q1 Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy Distric!.

¶16

ESTFOI(l':

¶17

Petition Undel Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶18

...*'r.:{'i.

¶19

RESPONDENTS '^. -^r,f(Fl.

¶20

praying that in the

¶21

circumstances stated in the affidavit^filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} . 1'', I '^r:it'

¶22

pleased to issue ' r F!o:.!,!llE q a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the .'Btaq-nature of writ of mandamus q":Hig ll: action of the Respondent^{No. 3 in} lgfu:i:glg.r9sister the documents^-through : lntimation of^{Refusal LettersJf{o.19120?4;+2012024,} r --^{. .s;h'rri+.} .:+.-r^'. +.,jiii. 4t.lti{$fr. 'r

¶23

21t202.4,22t2024,2312024 -' --:,^{'-*l!!ittE'?f} and 2412024,^{dated11- 07- 2024} " ";-=r 1c'l6t-;ⁱⁿ ,respe-c!-qlf-ending:;ffiSEt :: Documents No. P5212024. P5312024, P5412024,^{P5512024:P5612024 and} . ; .;,;r:1.

¶24

P57t2024, dated 22lOGl2O24 submitted by the^{petitionerto register tlp'Sbledeeds} t "-^--' +ffg, '4. n ': -'- ' -t'.',ryIiE rr

¶25

--i

¶26

in resbect ': y.t:{-'Eqffi | bf thd'FPIdITNo.^':201 admeasuring^{200 'sq.} .-.-:r.'^yards, ,}.?Edee+ -Plol$jo-³⁶⁷ Ii admeasuring 290 .-g;i#:,'ptcii No. 36e admeasurins^{200 so.} varoslHIg f,o*o admeasuring 200 _ sq.^yards, Plot No.^{401 admeasuring 300 sq. yardsandPlotNo.} ..i;&;.) "i.;,qp{^c

¶27

406 admeasuring 200-sq.^yards in Sy.^{No. 208, 209, 210, 211, 212,213' 214' 215} ..d{*,.. *"\i.r"r,'.

¶28

,.;.,;i*rf,;'-j!,t'd'

¶29

.,--**t#.. i. .*?i.E;tsdiq

¶30

and 217, situated at^{AbdullapurVillage, Abdullapurmel RevenueMandal} (Erstwhile Hayathnagar Mandal) Ranga Reddy^{District,on the, ground that the link} document is an unregistered^{document,being illegal, arb trary and violative of} Articles^.14 and 300-^{A of the constitutionof lndia apart fi-om being violative of} principles of natural^justice and consequently set^{asideth€) same and directthe} Respondent No.3 to^register and^{releasethe documen:/s presented by the} petitioner.

¶31

|.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶32

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the.circ;umstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the HighCourt may be pleased to} suspend the lmpugned^{lntimationof Refusal Letters N'r. 1912024' 2012024'} 21t2O24,2212024,23t2024^{and 2412024, dated'1 1'07- 21t24 issued bv the 3rd} respondent in respect of Pending^{DocumentsNo. P5212O24 I'53f2O'24,P5412O24'} P55t2O24, P5612024 and P5712024,^{daled 22- 06- 2024 and thereby directingthe} :,.'.:ar'..: {-1 3rd respondent to forthwith^{register and releasethe said documents,'pending} ,s,t: '1t' '. tt. disposal of the writ Petition. ;x;&&' . . :i,j .-r t.alrlr'! ir Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI^{PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA} .:.t&ii''. '^{; ,,:iii:'} Counsel for the Respo ndents^: SMT^{S.SRAVANTHI, AG P FOR REVENU E} '^-'+-' i.ffi!"t -'i <i!'" The Court at the stage of admission^{made the} ng i Jr"..rrti!.!ia,&!t:., j, ,... .. ''^l:.1.1,, * I I ' : lttlrir&:. rl .-.,it..,; . - "-;r+ir#" -.-^..:.rg!r!rt . :..'i,:-.':')&j.:.-'' .a'.irj:1 ...;.: rirl;r-. t_: i,'.._ . * -r*;r&lir. - .tlC${.. .,ii, .. a {

¶33

t.t ,-.sffiryj.,;*i; -

¶34

-/

¶35

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.3O5O 3 ot2O24

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

Heard Sri Papaiah^peddakula, learned counsel for the petiti,oner and Smt. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents. with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶38

2- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.p.No.163 10 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 and a.lso recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi Vs The SubtRegistrart and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition.

¶39

Learned Assista,t Government preader for Stamps and Registration has not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶40

The relevant portion of the order in W.p.No.16310 of 2OI9 and batch dated 11.O1.2023 is as under:

¶41

r2025 SCC OnLine SC 740

3

F

2

"13. The power of the registering authority to reft sr: registration is only, if any of the grounds or objectrons that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules mircc thcreunder in particular Sectrons 19, 20, 21, 22 A, 34, 35 and rule 5t of thr: Telangana Rules under lhe Registration Act, 1908, are existing in rcspr:cl ofany such document^presented for the registration. Except, thc grorrn:ls or objecttons that are enumerated under the provisions of the Ilegislration Act, 1908, the registering authorities have no authority to refusc r--gistration o[ a document on any other ground. As already noted abov,', the ground on l'hrch the impugned refusal orders in all these batch of "Vrit Petitrons are passed is that the link document shown in the respecti: documcnts rs a r.alidated ancl an unregistered document. By looking inrr, rt validitv of the Iink document, the registering authorit-\ is indirectly vcrl ' ng rrhether the exccutants of ttre respective documents are having vill (l titlc or not to e\ecute the documents in question. As held in the abovc rctcrred.ludgment in the case ol Dr'. Yadla Ramesh Naidu (l supra), the rcg slenngl authority is not entitled to go into the title of the parties to the (locurn(nt lt is a scttled la$'that the vendee under a document will not g,--t a )e cr title than hls vendor and in case if vendor is not having a Yirlrd tilie over the property which is the subject matter of a particular docu ncnt, rhe vendee under the said rlocument does not get any title over sL c:l prc,perty and mere registration of such document wrll not have an effc( | :)n the propertJ, ,,r hich is the subJect matter of the said document.

¶46

As rightly conceded by the learned Governnrent i)leader for Stamps and Registration, the registering authorities a not cntitled to rcfuse registration of a document on mcre groun(l thir] the title of the cxecutants of the respective document is based Llp( n thc validatcd document, though the same is compulsorily registerable (locumcnt cannot be accepted and such a ground is not available .to the registering authorities to refuse registration o[ a document on that ground.

¶47

I9. In the light of the above, this Court is unhesitanr to hold that the respondent registering authorities are not entitled to rcfu je registration of a document on the ground that the link document r(,litrred to in the rcspective dor:unrent is a validated document or to refu:;c registration of such document by placing reliance on endorsement, rlr rtr:d O2:.0 1.2008, issued bv thc Commissioner and Inspector General oI Slam;ts and Registration. Ac<:ordingly, the impugncd orders in thc r-esp<:r:tive Writ

Bbra*.- .-

3

t

I I

Pctitions are set aside and Writ Petrtions are allo"ved 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."

¶53

In K.Gopi's case (supra 1), the Honble Supreme Court held as under:

¶54

"The registering ofhcer 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 ofhcer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/ lee 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 eflect of transferring only those rights, if a1\y, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer-

¶55

In view of the order passed in W.P.No.163 10 of 2OI9 and batch dated 1L.O1.2O23 and also the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in K. Gopi's case (supra 1) and for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to receive, register arrd release the sale deeds dated 22.06.2024 uide Document

¶56

) I .--:l : il: 'j1

¶57

4

¶58

Nos. P52 / 2024, P53 I 2024, P54 I 2024, P55 I 2024, P56 I 2024 and P57 /2024, presented by the petitioner Ln respect of the subject property, without reference to the intimation of Refusal Order Nos. 19/2024, 20 12024, 21 12024, 2212024, 2312024 and 24 12024, dated ll.O7 .2025, subject to condition ol the said documents complrring with the provisions under the Registration Act, 1908 ancl the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. There shall be no order as t<t costs

¶59

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ

¶60

petition, shall st.and closed.

¶61

SD/. C. DEEPIKA --ISTANT REGI,STRAR //TRUE GOPY//^I T'

. SECTION OFFICER

To

\

The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Starnm and Registration) Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, State of Telangana gl llyderabad.

¶66

The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶67

The Sub- Registrar, Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶68

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the St:rte of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶69

5 One CC to SRI PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA, Advocate [OPJC]
6. Two CD Copies
SA
GJP v "r
&. :l
tli,:t:ft
l. ill
Irl
...r.rarA!t& ha,- &i

¶70

,. !, 1l lr ii

¶71

1.1 i,;

¶72

Ir i'i kl Er TI 1', ti;1li

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1111112025

514 re
k
(('
1:
-
21 il0ll &[ (-
c S.s FATCFF-O
ORDER .,
:Iir4tJ:r'.. l'
p-., .. ,
WP.No.30503 of 2024 .-:
rY
n, I
-a,
;. .'., ; ;... f, i
:a'
s.-.l .'7.J
,;
.';...
.:-?rr , t -l !
i
I
!'B{
i.. \ .qELl i '-.,:ri1.'i
DISPOSING OF TH
-- j;
-.ryilEFfiE$:l: . ..i:l E W.P
.- ::AT THE STAGE OF ADMIS SION
idD.. ,",..1
.-aE5pti.,i -{5'.i:i.r $.:',''
.1rE lt t \i rBE,
a?
WITHO COSTS.
]
j
i
.,1
i.
,.t
RI rlb/ .l
'l t
ri$n, , *i -. ,l *
!
.Mi#iti"

¶77

ii*i

¶78

.rs

Smt. Guduri Kalpana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Guduri Kalpana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt R. Prameela , Premeela Vs The State of Telangana

G. Sathyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.The Co-Op. Tenant Farming Society Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

B.v.Ramana Murthy, Vs The State of Telangana

Shri Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan Trust, P and T Colony, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kavali Krishna Yadav Vs The State of Telangana