Registering authorities must receive and process presented documents, subject to statutory compliance and reasoned refusal.

The petitioner sought a writ declaring the action of Respondent No. 2 in refusing to receive, register, and release a sale deed relating to the residential western portion of House No. 43-546/54, situated in the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Cooperative Housing Society, Telangana, as arbitrary and illegal.

At the hearing, the petitioner confined the relief sought to a direction requiring the registering authority to receive and process the document.

The respondents stated that they would follow the procedure prescribed under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Whether the registering authority could refuse to receive and process the sale deed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the registering authority to receive and process the document, subject to compliance with the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, requires a Sub-Registrar refusing registration—except where the property is outside the sub-district—to record an order of refusal and the reasons in Book No. 2, endorse “registration refused” on the document, and provide a copy of the reasons upon application.

A registering authority may refuse registration only by adopting the statutory procedure and by communicating a reasoned decision.

The Court also required compliance with the applicable provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Since the petitioner’s grievance was that Respondent No. 2 was refusing to register the document, and the respondents agreed to follow Section 71, the Court directed the registering authority to receive and process the document in accordance with law.

The direction did not amount to an adjudication that the petitioner was entitled to registration.

The authority remained entitled to refuse the document if it had a valid objection, but it was required to record reasons and communicate the decision to the petitioner in accordance with Section 71.

The authority was permitted to refuse registration on valid grounds, provided it assigned reasons and communicated its decision to the petitioner.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits or on the petitioner’s entitlement to registration.

Pending miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.