APHC010284422026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14810/2026 Between: 1. PALLIKELA RAMA KRISHNA, S/O. RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.2-31, PANASAPADU VILLAGE, ATCHEMPETA JUNCTION, KAKINADA RURAL KAKINADA DISTRICT 2. PALLIKELANARESH, S/O. SITARAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.9-28, PUSAPATIREGA VILLAGE VIZIANAGARAM RURAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522237 2. THE SUBREGISTRAR, SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, SAMALKOTA, KAKINADA DISTRICT.533440 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAVITEJA JAMMALAMADAKA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not registering the Attorney document, dated 25.03.2026 and Doc.No.01/2026, Dt.04.04.2026 with respect to subject extent of 1344.28 petitioners General Power assigning pending property situated in Survey No. 71/3 admeasuring an 4-37/1 and 4-37-1/2 PallikelaVariStreeetSq.yards bearing D.Nos. Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District and further seeking the information from the Thasildar, Visakhapatnam urban, Visakhapatnam District vide letter C.No.107/2026, dated 06.04.2026 as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction apart from violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Art.21 and 300A of constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register and release the petitioners General Power Attorney Document bearing pending Doc.No.01/2026, dated 04.04.2026 …” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Mr. Raviteja Jammalamadaka, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that Respondent No.2 has failed to register the Petitioners’ General Power of Attorney (GPA) document dated 25.03.2026 and has arbitrarily referred the matter to the Tahsildar, which is without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice. He therefore prays for a direction to Respondent No.2 to register and release the said GPA. 4. Sri T. Sanjeev Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No.2 has forwarded the document submitted by the Petitioners along with the General Power of Attorney (GPA) to the Tahsildar for verification of its genuineness. The GPA was appended 3 with a possession certificate and transmitted to the Tahsildar for such verification. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners relied upon Rule 58 of the Registration Act, 19081 from which it can be gleaned that the Sub-Registrar is bound to consider objections only on the grounds specifically enumerated therein, as set out below. “(a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be; (b) that the document is forged; (c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign oragent, has no right to appear in that capacity’ (d) that the executing party is not really dead as alleged by the party applying for registration; or (e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic.” 6. It is not the case of the Respondents that the Petitioners’ document is forged or fabricated. No objections have been raised by any party. Respondent No.2 has merely referred the possession certificate to the Tahsildar for verification whether it is forged or genuine one. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar2, wherein at para Nos.15 to 19, it is held as under: “15. 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 1 ‘the Act’ 2 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 402 4 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. 16. Therefore, assuming that there is a power under Section 69 of the 1908 Act to frame the rules, Rule 55-A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Due to the inconsistency, Rule 55-A(i) will have to be declared ultra vires the 1908 Act. The rule-making power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Rule 55-A(i) is accordingly declared as ultra vires the 1908 Act. 17. As the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court, relying on Rule 55-A(i), and since Rule 55-A(i) is held to be invalid, the impugned judgments must be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. 18. We, therefore, permit the appellant to lodge the sale deed for registration within a period of one month from today. On procedural compliances being made, the registering officer concerned shall proceed to register the sale deed. 19. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi supra emphatically held that the registering authority under ‘the Act.,’ performs a purely ministerial function and lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the title of the executant. It declared Rule 55-A(i), framed under Section 69, ultra vires for being inconsistent with the statutory scheme, as it impermissibly conferred powers alien to ‘the Act’. Consequently, the Court quashed the High Court’s reliance on the said rule, directed registration of the appellant’s sale deed upon compliance with procedural requirements, and allowed the appeal, reaffirming that registration does not validate title but only records the transaction. 9. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that in the absence of any protest, oral or written, against registration of the Petitioners’ 5 document, there was no justification for the Sub-Registrar to refer the document to the Tahsildar for verification. 10. Respondent No.2, under Rule 58 of ‘the Act’, was not obligated to enquire into the validity of the document brought to him for registration or to attend any written or oral protest against its registration based on the ground that executing party has no right to execute the document. As seen from the record, there is no petition or objection from any person regarding the registration of the Petitioners’ GPA on the ground that the document is a forged one. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Respondent No.2 is directed to register the Petitioners’ General Power of Attorney (GPA) document dated 25.03.2026 forthwith, without awaiting any report from the Tahsildar regarding the genuineness of the possession certificate submitted by the Petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 28.05.2026 PRA/JLSR 6 23 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14810 of 2026 Date: 28.05.2026 PRA/JLSR