AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the proceedings vide Lr.No.E1/4483/2024 dated 15.11.2025, issued by respondent No.2, in placing the lands in Sy.No.41/11 of Akhanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, under GHMC, Ranga Reddy District in the prohibitory register, and the consequent refusal order No.317 of 2026 dated 31.07.2026 passed by respondent No.4, refusing registration of the document presented by the petitioners, and consequently, to direct respondent No.4 to register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioners.
Heard Sri G. Ravi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
The lis in the present writ petition has been elaborately adjudicated by this Court in W.P.No.33154 of 2025 and batch, wherein, this Court has passed detailed common order dated 17.04.2025, allowing the writ petitions, directing the registering authority to register and release the documents without reference to the refusal orders therein. The same is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
In view of the above and for the reasons alike in the order dated 17.04.2025 in W.P.No.33154 of 2025 and batch, this Writ Petition is also allowed setting aside the impugned letter of respondent No.2-District Collector dated 15.11.2025, in so far as petitioners' subject property is concerned and the registering authority-Sub Registrar is directed to register and release the document presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject property, without reference to the impugned Refusal Order dated 31.07.2026 subject to petitioners complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is also open to the registering authority to refuse registration of the subject document on any other reasons, by specifically assigning such reasons, in terms of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, and communicate the said decision to the petitioners. It is made clear that mere registration of the document does not confer title on the subject property and this order would not have any bearing on all those matters where title/rights of the parties are pending, if any, before the authorities, either in revision/appeals for adjudication, and in any other case, this order also shall not preclude the parties in asserting their rights before a competent Court of law.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Since the lis in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are analogously heard together, and are taken up for disposal by way of this common order.
These Writ Petitions are filed seeking to declare and set aside the proceedings in Lr.No.E1/4483/2024 dated 15.03.2025 issued by respondent No.2, in including the lands in Sy.Nos.41/8 and 41/9 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, under GHMC, Ranga Reddy District (for brevity, 'the subject land'), in the prohibitory list; and the refusal orders dated 29.10.2025 and 01.11.2025, respectively, passed by respondent No.4, as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908; and consequently, to direct respondent No.4 to register and release the sale deeds presented by the petitioners in respect of the Semi Furnished Flat Nos.201, 202, 301, 302, 401, 402, 501 and 502 respectively, in Block-C, Suryodaya Abode, in Plot Nos.21, 22 (part), 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 (Part), and 28, in Sy.Nos.41/8 and 41/9, situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District, (hereinafter referred to as, 'the subject flats').
The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.2 herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring an extent of 2810 sq.yds., in H.No.2-42/46/D/21-24, on Plot Nos.21, 22, 23, 24, and H.No.2-42/46/D/25-28 on Plot Nos.25, 26, 27, 28, situated in Sy.Nos.41/8 and 41/9 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal under GHMC Circle, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under two registered sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.10216 of 2006 dated 02.05.2006 and 10396 of 2006 dated 04.05.2006, from Mr. Syed Subjan Fareed Peer, rep. by his General Power of Attorney Mr. K. Lakshmaiah, and Mr. Syed Ashfaq Peer, respectively. Subsequently, GHMC had undertaken road widening works from Izzath Nagar to Ghousia Masjid Road (near Aurobindo), due to which, an extent of 224.54 sq.yds., on the eastern side of Plot Nos.25, 26, 27 and 28 was affected. Accordingly, the GHMC, vide letter dated 08.07.2020, requested petitioner No.2 herein to give consent for acquisition of the affected portion, subject to payment of compensation as per the prevailing R&B rates. As such, after acquisition of the said land, the total extent of petitioner's land was reduced to 2585.45 sq.yds.
Later, petitioner No.2 divided the remaining land into three blocks, viz., Blocks-A, B and C, comprising of land admeasuring 902 sq.yds., 817.18 sq.yds., and 795.40 sq.yds, respectively, and entered into a development agreement with petitioner No.1-company. Accordingly, three development agreements were executed and registered between the petitioners bearing Doc.Nos.6289 of 2022, 6290 of 2022 and 6291 of 2022, all dated 22.02.2022. Thereafter, petitioner No.1, acting on behalf of petitioner No.2, had applied for building permission in Block-C, consisting of one stilt + five upper floors, and GHMC, having satisfied with the title and possession, granted building permit order No.1735/GHMC/SLP2/2023-BP dated 03.06.2023. Pursuant thereto, the residential building was constructed. Later, the petitioners executed a supplementary agreement vide registered Doc.No.14512 of 2024 dated 30.07.2024, for allocation of their respective flats, whereunder, the subject flats, i.e., Semi Furnished Flat Nos.201, 202, 301, 302, 401, 402, 501 and 502, of Block-C of Suryaodaya Abode, fell to the share of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2, along with petitioner No.1 herein, have executed sale deeds in favour of a third party, in respect of the subject flats, and presented the same before respondent No.4 for registration. However, respondent No.4 issued the impugned intimation of refusal vide Refusal Orders dated 29.10.2025 and 01.11.2025, respectively, refusing to register the same, on the ground that the subject land was included in the list of prohibited properties furnished by respondent No.2 herein vide impugned letter dated 15.03.2025, classifying the subject land as 'Laoni Patta (POT) - State Government' under Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, and therefore, prohibited from registration. Hence, the writ petitions.
Heard Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that much prior to issuance of the impugned letter dated 15.03.2025, a Notification bearing File No.E5/4733/2013 dated 26.09.2013, was issued in respect of the various lands situated in various mandals like Serilingampally, Rajendranagar, etc., including the subject land, claiming those lands to be Government Lands. However, the legality of the said Notification dated 26.09.2013, which also covered the subject land herein, was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.19069 of 2014, and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.08.2014, setting aside the notification. Thereafter, respondent No.2 had issued a fresh list and letter bearing Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 dated 10.06.2021 and 29.09.2021, once again treating the said lands as 'Government Land'. As such, these letters dated 10.06.2021 and 29.09.2021 were assailed before this Court in W.P.No.16109 of 2024, which was allowed vide order dated 19.07.2024, setting aside the aforesaid lists. However, despite the above orders, respondent No.2 had devised a new strategy to prohibit registrations over the subject land, and issued another list vide impugned Lr.No.E1/4483/2024 dated 15.03.2025, classifying the subject lands as 'Laoni Patta (POT)'-Government Lands. It is submitted that the Laoni lands are not government lands, but are private lands, governed by the Laoni Rules, 1950, and thus, these lands cannot be treated as Government lands under the provisions of the POT Act, 1977. Further, the respondents herein, at their own whims and fancies, are classifying the subject land as Kharij Khata, Laoni Patta, etc., leading to illegal refusal of registrations.
It is further submitted that the subject land in Sy.Nos.41/8 and 41/9 of Khanamet Village was subjected to numerous transactions for more than (40) years, and several documents thereof were also registered. The GHMC authorities have also granted building permissions, following which, residential buildings were constructed. As such, if the Government claims to have any right or interest over the subject land, the proper remedy available to them is to file an appropriate Civil Suit seeking declaration of its title, but they cannot include the lands in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, and prohibit the valuable right of owners to alienate the property. It is further submitted that in similar circumstances when respondent No.4 refused to register and release the sale deed presented by the owners of Flat No.401, Block-C, Alkapuri Heights, situated in Sy.No.41/7 of Khanamet Village, on similar grounds, the owners filed W.P.No.4707 of 2025, wherein, interim orders were granted directing respondent No.4 to register and release the sale deed. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks indulgence of this Court.
Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, had filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No.35977 of 2025, and a Memo vide W.P.USR.No.2 of 2026 dated 29.01.2026 is filed, duly adopting the said counter affidavit in respect of all the writ petitions. It is submitted that as per the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55 of Khanamet Village, the land in Sy.No.55 (Old) of Khanamet Village, admeasuring Ac.286-00 gts., is classified as 'Poramboke Sarkari' and belongs to the Government. Upon revision survey in 1957-58, the survey numbers and its extent have been reclassified and recorded. Further, as per the Wasool Baqui and the Sethwar Records, the land in Sy.No.55 (corresponding to new Sy.No.41), Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, total admeasuring Ac.252.24 gts., is a Government land, classified as 'Poramboke'. Out of this land in Sy.No.41, an extent of Ac.47-00 gts., was assigned to (13) landless poor individuals in the year 1962, only for agricultural purposes, without any alienation rights, and their names were recorded in the pattadar column, leaving the remaining extent of land, i.e., Ac.205-24 gts., being continued in records as Government land.
It is further submitted that as per the entries of the Pahanies, the lands admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts., each in Sy.Nos.41/8 and 41/9 were assigned to Smt. Nagamma and Mr. Eeraiah resectively. However, it has later come to notice that their LRs alienated the said land in contravention of the assignment rules. As such, the said land in Sy.Nos.41/8 and 41/9 of Khanamet Village, had earlier been included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The remaining extent of land in Sy.No.41 of Khanamet Village, were later resumed back to the Government. Later, some portions of the remaining land were allotted to APIIC/HMDA, and only the land purchased from them through auction is alienable, and the remaining extent of land belongs to the Government. However, certain individuals have converted the said assigned/government land into plots and started constructions thereon, against the rules, which illegal activity was stopped by the field staff. Further, since the lands in question have been recorded as 'patta lands' instead of 'laoni patta', the then M.R.O., appears to have granted mutation illegally, and any such mutation over the Government/assigned land is invalid under law and is null and void.
It is further submitted that as per the directions of this Court in W.A.Nos.343 of 2015, 232 of 2012 and 352 of 2013 dated 23.12.2015, and also in various writ petitions, the respondents have taken necessary action to include the subject land in the prohibitory list, and proposals, with regard to prohibition of the properties in Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, have been sent by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, to the Commissioner & Inspector General, Stamps and Registration, Hyderabad, vide Lr.No.E1/4483/2024 dated 21.01.2025, and later, a revised proposal has also been sent vide Lr.No.E1/4483/2024 dated 15.03.2025. Subsequently, on receipt of instructions from the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana, vide CCLA's Ref.No.Assn.I/3282276/205 dated 11.09.2025, revised proposals in new prescribed proformas have been sent by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide Lr.No.E1/4483/2024 dated 15.11.2025. As such, in order to protect the interest of the Government, the subject lands have been included in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, to avoid any transactions over valuable Government land and thus, any documents executed over the subject land invalid and void. Therefore, since the subject land is a Government land, which is classified as 'Laoni Patta', the same has rightly been included in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, and respondent No.4 has rightly rejected the registration of document filed by the petitioners herein. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
The grievance of the petitioners herein pertains to the refusal of registration of the sale deeds presented by them, in respect of Semi Furnished Flat Nos.201, 202, 301, 302, 401, 402, 501 and 502, in Block-C of Suryodaya Abode, in Plot Nos.21, 22 (part), 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 (Part), and 28, in Sy.Nos.41/8 and 41/9, situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. In this connection, it is apposite to refer to the reason assigned in the one of the refusal orders passed by respondent No.4 vide Refusal Order No.452/2025 dated 29.10.2025 (impugned in W.P.No.33154 of 2024), which is extracted hereunder:
"As per list of prohibited properties vide District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lr.No.E1/4483/2024 dated 15.03.2025 received on 17.03.2025, supplied as per G.O.Ms.No.121, Revenue (Regn-I) Department dated 01.06.2016 the survey numbers 41/8 & 41/9, of Khanamet Village is notified as prohibitory property under section 22(A)(1)(b) of Registration Act, 1908 classified as "Laoni Patta (POT) -State Government". is notified as prohibitory property under section 22(A)(1)(b) of Registration Act, 1908 and is prohibited for registration. I, therefore, refuse registration of the document under section 22(A)(1)(b) of Registration Act,1908."
From the above, it is clear that the refusal orders have been issued by respondent No.4 solely on the ground that the subject land was included in the list of prohibited properties furnished by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 15.03.2025, classifying the subject as 'Laoni Patta (POT) – State Government'. It is the specific case of the respondents that the subject land is a Government land, and therefore, it has been included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. However, it is to be noted that the question of the Government's title over the subject land, constitutes a disputed question of fact, which falls outside the scope of adjudication of this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Before adverting further, it is apposite to refer to Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, which is extracted hereunder: The following is the relevant extract of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
"22-A. Prohibition of Registration of certain documents.- (1)The following classes of documents shall be prohibited from registration, namely:
(a)documents relating to transfer of immoveable property, the alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any statute of the State or Central Government;
(b)documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease in respect of immoveable property owned by the State or Central Government, executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so;
(c)documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift, exchange or lease exceeding (ten) 10 years in respect of immoveable property, owned by Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or by Wakfs falling under the Wakfs Act, 1995 executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so;
(d)agricultural or urban lands declared as surplus under the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 or the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976;
(e)any document or class of documents pertaining to the properties the State Government may, by notification prohibit the registration in which avowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal, Revenue Courts and Direct and Indirect Tax Laws and others which are likely to adversely affect those interests.
(2)For the purpose of clause (e) of sub-section (1), the State Government shall publish a notification after obtaining reasons for and full description of properties furnished by the District Collectors concerned in the manner as may be prescribed."
The scope and applicability of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, were comprehensively examined by the Full Bench of this Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary and others v. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & others1, wherein, this Court formulated detailed guidelines governing registrations. The following is an excerpt of the said guidelines:
“158.We, thus, summarize our conclusions and issue directions as follows : -
(i)The authorities mentioned in the guidelines, which are obliged to prepare lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d), to be sent to the registering authorities under the provisions of Registration Act, shall clearly indicate the relevant clause under which each property is classified.
(ii)Insofar as clause (a) is concerned, the concerned District Collectors shall also indicate the statute under which a transaction and its registration is prohibited. Further in respect of the properties covered under clause (b), they shall clearly indicate which of the Governments own the property.
(iii)Insofar as paragraphs (3) and (4) in the Guidelines, covering properties under clause (c) and (d) are concerned, the authorities contemplated therein shall also forward to the registering authorities, along with lists, the extracts of registers/gazette if the property is covered by either endowment or wakf, and declarations/orders made under the provisions of Ceiling Acts if the property is covered under clause (d).
(iv)The authorities forwarding the lists of properties/lands to the registering authority shall also upload the same to the website of both the Governments, namely igrs.ap.gov.in of the State of Andhra Pradesh and registration.telangana.gov.in of the State of Telangana. If there is any change in the website, the State Governments shall indicate the same to all concerned, may be by issuing a press note or an advertisement in prominent daily news papers.
(v)No notification, contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 22A, is necessary with respect to the properties falling under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A.
(vi)The properties covered under clause (c) of Section 22-A shall be notified in the official gazette of the State Governments and shall be forwarded, along with the list of properties, and a copy of the relevant notification/gazette, to the concerned registering authorities under the provisions of Registration Act and shall also place the said notification/gazette on the aforementioned websites of both the State Governments. The Registering authorities shall make available a copy of the Notification/Gazette on an application made by an aggrieved party.
(vii)The registering authorities would be justified in refusing registration of documents in respect of the properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A provided the authorities contemplated under the guidelines, as aforementioned, have communicated the lists of properties prohibited under these clauses.
(viii)The concerned authorities, which are obliged to furnish the lists of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, and the concerned Registering Officers shall follow the guidelines scrupulously.
(ix)It is open to the parties to a document, if the relevant property/land finds place in the list of properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, to apply for its deletion from the list or modification thereof, to the concerned authorities as provided for in the guidelines. The concerned authorities are obliged to consider the request in proper perspective and pass appropriate order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the application and make its copy available to the concerned party.
(x)The redressal mechanism under Section 22-A(4) shall be before the Committees to be constituted by respective State Governments as directed in paragraph-35.1 above. The State Governments shall constitute such committees within eight weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.
(xi)Apart from the redressal mechanism, it is also open to an aggrieved person to approach appropriate forum including Civil Court for either seeking appropriate declaration or deletion of his property/land from the list of prohibited properties or for any other appropriate relief.
(xii)The directions issued by learned single Judges in six judgments referred to above or any other judgments dealing with the provisions of Section 22-A, if are inconsistent with the observations made or directions issued in this judgment, it is made clear that the observations made and directions issued in this judgment shall prevail and would be binding on the parties including the registering authorities under the Registration Act or Government officials or the officials under the Endowments Act, Wakf Act and Ceiling Acts.
(xiii)If the party concerned seeks extracts of the list/register/gazette of properties covered by clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A (1), received by the registering officer on the basis of which he refused registration, it shall be furnished within 10 days from the date of an application made by the aggrieved party.
(xiv)Registering officer shall not act and refuse registration of a document in respect of any property furnished to him directly by any authority/officer other than the officers/authorities mentioned in the Guidelines.
(xv)Mere registration of a document shall not confer title on the vendee/alienee, if the property is otherwise covered by clauses (a) to (e), but did not find place in the lists furnished by the concerned authorities to the registering officers. In such cases, the only remedy available to the authorities under clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A is to approach appropriate forums for appropriate relief."
Subsequently, the validity of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, was also upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Invecta Technologies Private Limited and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others2, by expressly referring to and relying upon the binding guidelines framed by the Full Bench of this Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary (supra).
In the instant case, the respondents themselves admitted, in their counter affidavit, that the subject land was earlier assigned to landless poor individuals for carrying out agricultural activities. However, it is neither their case that such assignment has been cancelled in accordance with law, nor any material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate as to what steps have been taken to cancel such assignments or resumption of the land. In the absence of any such cancellation, the respondents ought not to have invoked Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, which applies only to the Government-owned properties. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the claim of the respondents fall within the ambit of Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908, which empowers the State Government to prohibit registration of any documents pertaining to the land/ property, which involves an accrued right or interest of the Government over such property. Section 22-A(2), coupled with the guidelines issued in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary (supra), mandates the State Government to issue a notification in the official gazette, specifying the properties sought to be prohibited under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908. Admittedly, in the present case, no such notification has even ever been issued by the State Government in respect of the subject land.
It is also pertinent to note that similar instances came up for adjudication before this Court on earlier occasions. Firstly, a Notification bearing File No.E5/4733/2013 dated 26.09.2013, was earlier issued by the respondents in respect of the various extents of land, including the subject land, claiming them as Government Lands. However, the said Notification dated 26.09.2013 was assailed before this Court in W.P.No.19069 of 2014, wherein, this Court passed an order dated 25.08.2014, holding that the said Notification is not a notification under Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, and therefore, disposed of the said writ petition, directing the registering authority to receive and process the documents presented before him, without reference to the said Notification dated 26.09.2013. The following is the relevant portion of the said order:
“11.In view of the submission of learned Advocate General, it is made clear that notification dated 26.09.2013 is not a notification under Section 22(A)(2) of the Act and since, as on today, there is no such notification issued under Section 22(A)(2) of the Act, there is no restraint on the registering authority to receive and process the deeds of conveyance concerning the lands in Survey Nos.79 to 80 of Hafeezpet Village.
12.Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub- Registrar to receive and process the deeds of conveyance without reference to the District Gazette notification dated 26.09.2013 in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. However, it is open to the registering authority to refuse to register the deeds presented before him, if he has any other objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and communicate the decision to the petitioners. It is made clear that mere registration of deed of conveyance does not confer title to the property and it is made clear that this order does not preclude the Government to take appropriate steps as warranted by law and to assert its title. No costs.”
Likewise, a fresh list vide Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 was issued by the District Collector, classifying the subject land as ‘Government Land’ under Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, and prohibited any transactions over the same. When the registering authority refused registration of a document presented in respect of a property situated in the subject land, the aggrieved party instituted W.P.No.16109 of 2024, assailing the said list dated 29.09.2021 and the refusal order therein. This Court allowed the said writ petition vide order dated 19.07.2024, setting aside the list and the refusal order therein, holding that they are mere letters addressed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, to the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, for taking necessary action, and that no notification, as required under the provisions of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, was issued, and directed the registering authority to receive, register and release the document presented therein. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
12.It is also pertinent to note that in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary (Supra) at paragraph 156 the Full Bench of this Court had summarized and issued directions. As per the Guideline (v), no notification is contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 22(A) of the Act with respect to the properties falling under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22(A). As stated earlier, as per Guideline (vi), the properties covered under clause (c) of Section 22 A shall be notified in the official Gazette of the State Governments and shall be forwarded, along with the list of properties, and a copy of the relevant notification/ Gazette, to the concerned registering authorities under the provisions of the Act and shall also place the said notification/Gazette on the websites of both the State Governments.
13.As such, the letter dated 10.06.2021 in Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 and the similar letter dated 29.09.2021 in which reference of letter dated 10.06.2021 was made, are only letters submitted by District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to District Registrar, Registration & Stamps Department, Ranga Reddy District for taking further necessary action and that cannot be the basis for refusal for registration of the subject property. It is also pertinent to note that subsequently, no notification was issued by respondent authorities with respect to the list of lands mentioned in the letter dated 10.06.2022. In view of the same, letter dated 10.06.2021 in Lr.No.E5/2825/2021 and the similar letter dated 29.09.2021 submitted by District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to District Registrar, Registration & Stamps Department, Ranga Reddy District are not in consonance to the provisions of Section 22-A of the Act and 22 (A)(1)(e) and Clause (vi) of the guidelines and the same cannot be referred for the purpose of denying registration of the subject properties. Consequently, reference made vide Lr.No.E5/2825/2021, dated 10.06.2021 and similar letter dated 29.09.2021 are per se illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and are hereby set aside and writ petition stands allowed. Registering Authorities are directed to receive, register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 19t-18, and Indian Stamps Act, 1899. It is also open to the Re5listering Authority to refuse to register the subject document, by specifically assigning the reasons in terms of Section 71 of the Act, 1908 and communicate the said decision to the petitioner."
For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the letter dated 15.03.2025 addressed by respondent No.2 is not in consonance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and also the guidelines formulated by the Full Bench of this Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary (supra). Therefore, the impugned letter dated 15.03.2025 is liable to be set aside. Hence, the reliance placed by respondent No.4, upon the letter of respondent No.2 dated 15.03.2025, to refuse registration of the documents presented by the petitioners, is misplaced, as the said letter cannot form the basis for refusal of registration of subject document, in the absence of a Gazette Notification issued by the State Government.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned letter addressed by respondent No.2 vide Lr.No.E1/4483/2024 dated 15.03.2025, in respect of the subject land, and the registering authority is directed to register and release the documents presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject flats, without reference to the impugned Refusal Orders dated 29.10.2025 and 01.11.2025 respectively, subject to compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is also open to the registering authority to refuse registration of the subject documents, on any other reasons, by specifically assigning such reasons, in terms of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, and communicate the said decision to the petitioners. It is made clear that mere registration of the documents does not confer title on the subject property and this order would not have any bearing on all those matters where title/rights of the parties are pending, if any, before the authorities, either in revision/appeals for adjudication, and in any other case, this order also shall not preclude the parties in asserting their rights before a competent Court of law.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. No costs.