Mohammed Azmath Ali v. 1. The District Registrar

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rnay be pleased to direct the Respondents 1 and 2 herein to receive the documents for the purpose of registration in respect of the property bearing House No. 13-3-266116tN1, admeasuring about 162.55 square yards, puranapur, ziagudit, Hyderabad. T.S. pending disposal of the main Writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.A.MUJEEB counsel for the Respondents No.1&2:ASST.Gp FoR srAMps&REGlsrRATtoN Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI FARHAN AZAM KHAN. SC FOR WAKF The Court made the following: ORDER - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR W.P. No.3836 of 2o.23 ORDER: Challenging the action of the respondents No.1 and 2, District Registrar and Sub Registrar, Golconda, respectively, in including.the property bearing House No. 13-3-2661 16l Al | , admeasuring about

162.55 square yards, Puranapul, Ziaguda, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject propertyJ in the prohibitory list, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property and with an intention to sell the subject property, approached the registering authority respondenl No.2, who refused to receive, register and release the sale deed on the ground that the subject property is in the prohibitory list vide Memo No.2/HYD/C l2Oll-ZI, dated 29.tO.20tt.

3. On behalf of the respondent No.2, Sub Registrar, Golconda, while denying the writ averments, has hled counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that Inspector Auditor of Wakf-cum-Member Task Force, A.P. State Wakf iloard, addressed a letter dated 18.O1.2013 to the Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, and requested the registering authority not to register the documents relating to the door numbers mentioned therein as Lhey belongs to the Wakf Board and one suqp door numbers is of the petitioner found in the prohibitory 2 w.P- No,3636 or 2023 list. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 has already addressed a letter Nr>.94lSRO/Go1/Hyd(S)/2023, datcd 24.O3.2023 to the respondent No.,J stating that the Auditor Inspe,:tor Telangana State Wakf Board is not competent to furnish the list of Wak[ Board properLies prohibitecl from registration to the Sub Re6;istrar, Golconda and also informed lhe stalutory provision describe<l in the Section 22(ll(cl of the Registration Act, 1908 and requested him Lo confirm and communicate the list of door numbers prohibited from registration stated in the Ietter dated 18.01.2O13 t-hrough proper channel by due nolrfication. It is further submittecl that soon after receipt of rcply frorrL the respondent No.3 further cou rsc of action will be initiated. Il is specihcally submitted that the p,:l,itioner has not presented any dc,cument before the registerinl3 authority for registration of the srrbject property.

4. On behalf o1' the respondent No.3, Chief E;x.ecutive Offlcer, Telangana State Wakf Board, while denying the ',vrit averments, has filed counter a ffidavit, inter alia, stating that vrhile framing the guidelines in thc case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary V. Revenue Departmentl had issued directions to the Telangzrna State Waqf Board to comm unicate the list of all the waqf properties and in compliance thereol. Accordingly, list of waqf properties has been furnisl-red to the re.gistering authority requesting nr,t to entertain for registration incft,rding the subject property. |20t6(2\ALD2-r6 -Il) Y J t{vst(, J W.P Lo.3a36 of 2023

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that based on the letter dated 18.O1.2013 addressed by the Inspector Auditor of Wakf-cum-Member Task Force, the subject property cannot be included in the prohibited list and the same has been recited in the letter dated 24.03.2029 addressed by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3 that "the Chief Exeantiue Officer Telangana Wakf Boord is onlg empotuered to fumish the list of Wakf properties prohibited from Registrotion through proper channel bg due notification but in the aboue case Inspector Auditor Wakf Board directly communicated to the Sub Registrar, Golconda. fhlrefore, the Inspector Auditor is not competent to fumish the same to tLe Sub Registrar, Golconda," based on which the Sub Registrar cannot refuse to receive and register the subject document.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that with reference to the letter dated 18.01.2013, a letter dated 24.03.2023 has been addressed to ttre respondent No.3 requesting to veri$z and confirm the door numbers stated in the letter dated 18.01.2013 and communicate the same through proper channel as stated in the G.O. Ms.No.121 dated 01.06.2016. Soon after receipt of the reply from the respondent No.3, further course of action will be initiated in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not approach the registering authorit5r for registration of subject property. \ 4 NVSK, J W.P, o-3a36 of 2023

7. The learned ljtanding Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 reiterated the averments made in the counter a ff-rdavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3. It is further subrnitted that the respondent No.3 has substantial interest in the subjer;t property as it is belonging to Wakl property and prayed to pass appropriatc ordcrs. B. Heard thc lcarned counsel for the parties artd pcrused thc material made available on the record g. The main grievance of the petitioner is l.Lrzrt tl'rough Lhe petitior-rer approached the registering authorily for registration of thc subject propertJ', rhe registering authority refusetl to reccive and register the subject properly on the ground that it is in the prohibited Iist. l O. Having gone through the material on rec,rrd, pima facie, it is noticed thal lhe petitioner did not hle any executed document in support of his contention that he approached the registering authority for registration of subject document. As could be st en from the letter dated 18.0 i.2O I 3 ,t is ciear that the Inspector Auditor of Wakf-cum- Member Task Force had submitted a report regarding constitution of Managir-rg Comnritt-ee with a request to the authorilics not to appoint one Sri lqbal Ahmed Khan as Muthawalli and Managing Committee as the panel submitt<:d by one Md.Ahmed and others nray be appointed for the subjcct u'akf institr.rtion in the interest of Wal<I'. Along n,ith this letter, enclosed a copy containing the house nunrbers wherein the * -/ *'/,/ ,lt.n 5 !wtiI(, J W.P. No.3E36 of 2(}23 petitioner's house number is shown at Sl.No.4 and requested the Chief Secretary to Government to cancel the registration and also requested the Sub-Registrars not to register the house numbers mentioned therein as they are wakf property. It appears from the above, the registering authority is refusing to receive and register the subject document based on the said letter dated 18.O 1.2O 13. 1 I . However, at this juncture, it is not out of place to refer Sections 32 and 34 of the Registration Act, 19O8 and Circular Memo No.G3l9122l2024, dated 12.08.2024, which reads as under: "32. Persons to present documents Jor registration.-Except in the cases mentioned tn 1 [sections 31,88 and 89], euery document to be registered under this Act, uhetlter such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the p ro p e r regislratio n-offic e, - (a) bg some person executing or cloiming under the same, or, in the case of o copy of a decree or order, claiming under th.e decree or order, or (b) bg the representatiue or assign of such a person, (c) by the agent of such a person, representatiue or assigra dulg authodzed bg power-of attorneA executed and authenticated in manner hereinofier mentioned. 6 \r.P No.3a36 of 2023

34. Enquiry beJore registration bg registering ofJicer.-(l) Subject to the prouisions contairutcl- in this Porl ond in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 7'7, 88 and 81.t. no document shall be regbtered under ithis Act, ur le:;s the persons executing such doanrru=nL or lh, ir .epresenl aliues, ossigns or atr,nts authorize,:l a.s aforesaid, appear before the registe'r in.1 oJftcer within the time allou.tecl for presenlatiort under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26."

12. The circulal instructions issued by the Cornmissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangulna, Hyderabad uide Circular Mt,m,r No.G3 1912212024, dated 12.C8.2024, ',vhich reads as under: "Attentton of the Sub Registrars and Olficers in thz address entry is inuited to tlte refe.retlce ated, wherein Hon'ble Htgh Cour1. while disposing the W. P No.16836/ 2021 artd batch cases, dated: O9-O7-2t)i).4 issued common orders uttlt ct,rlcin quidelines to the Registration Authoitit?s and instntctions to concerned ponies. In cotllplitance with the orders of the Hon'ble High tlourt, the fotlolLting inst ructio ns ar e i.; su ed. L) Whetrcuer port)es/ citizen approach to register the docun,"nts, the concemed Sul,r-Regislrrzr'. s/rall as expeditiouslg os possible preferably tutthtn one u,'eek, either register the document or pass refusal order, in temr:: of the Registration Act, 1908 ond tlrc lndian Stamp Act, 1899 and communtcate tLLe some to the concented parTit-s. In no case, the Sub Registrars sh,aLl not refuse the documetts oralht for registratron, and it must be follouec, DA a uritten refusal orders. ti) In case cloaun<\Lts are refused for registration, lhe S:ub-Reg$trcls shall infonn the procedure for refund of Stamp DltA and registr'7tion cherges to the concernhd-pctrti< s/ Citizens clearlg. The refund shall be strictlA as per Indian Stomp Ac| 1899 a\d Registration Act, 1908. 7 NVSK, J $.P.110.3436 ol2023 iii) Sub-Registrars shall maintain a u)atch Register/ General Diary (GD Book/ Entry Book/ Register) ot euery Sub-Registrar Olfce and to make enties of the parties approaching the oIfrce on a partiatlar d.ate and time for the purpose for uthich they approached the office, so as lo auoid interference, tampeing and misrepresentation. In uieu of tlte aboue Sub-Registrars are hereby directed to matntain a Register in the follouing profonna. All the Sub- Registrars shall inuariablg maintain ttle register in the aboue proforma in their offi.ce and shall be kept open to ttw uisiting public to the oJf.ce to record their purpose for the future reference. The District Registrars shall ensure tlwt the aboue Registers are opened and mcintained in the each Sub-Registrar Olfice on reEtlar basis. iu) The registering authoities shall follotu the guideLines issued in the cases of Vinjamui Rajagopla Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and M/s. Inuecta Technologies Pri.uate Limited Vs. Gouernment of Andhra Pradesh. These instntctions shall be follouted scrupulously. If ang deuiatton is found, suitable disctplinary action uill be inttiated. These instntctions ulll ttot supersede the citizen charter prescribed for uarlous seruices rendered bg the department. "

13. This Court had many occasions to refer the procedure lor seeking registration of a document is that the parties first and foremost have to execute the document by signing the document and by following the provisions contemplated under Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908 and shall present the document before the registering authority. The parties have to pay registration charges, stamp duty and other incidental charges by way of challan and the 8 W.P. l{o.3a36 of 2023 estimated amount frrr the same will be available ir IGRS website, wherein Stamp drrty and registration charges will be calculated, enabling lhe parties 1o pay the challan. Thereafter, the parties shall approach the regis tering authority, enclosing the challan along with the relevant documents, which proves that the parties have approached and rrrade a proper presentation of do,:r_rment sough for registration. Hone'er, in the preset case, the petitioner has not enclosed the copy of executed document or challan, and no application n'as file d as a proof that the petitioner had approached the registering authorir.y for rcgistration of the subject prc.perty.

14. In thc said (tircular dated i2.o8.2o24, the Strtr-Registrars were directed to registt:r/ refuse the documents presented before them, duly following th,:: guidelines issued in the cases of Vinjamuri Rajagopla Chary (supra) and M/s. Invecta Technologies private Limited Vs. Government of Andhra pradesh2 and pass order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within one weck from the date of rece ipt of the do,.:uments.

15. It is also not out of place to observe that this Court on many occasions obser'e,l that the petitioners in their .,vrit affidavits are stating that th. liub-Registrars are orally refusi.51 to register the documents. It is striking to note that the parties in order to ensure that the docLrment presented for registration shall not be ' 2oza ( l)dt.r :tt 9 w.t. No.3tB6 of 2023 rejected/ refused for registration are filing writ petitions without following procedure contemplated under Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 19O8, and are trying to seek orders by misleading the Court. Many of such instances have come to the notice of this Court.

16. Under those circumstance, it is relevant to refer the order dated

19.08.1999, passed in Deverneni Linga Rao Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli3. The relevant paragraphs are extracted here under:- "8. The u.tell established Rule, subject to certain exceptions, is th-at tlrc applicant for mandamus must show by euidence, that he made a demand calling upon the concerned autloritg to perform his public dutg ond that u)as met u.tith refusal either bgwords or by conduct Applging this salutary ruLe, the Apex Court in Saraswati Industrial Sgndicate Ltd Etc., u.- Union of India, thus : ". . . . . The pou.)ers of the High Court under Article !!! arc not stictlg confined to the limits to tthich proceedings for prerogatiue u.tits are subject in English proctice. Neuertheless, the' uell-recognised rule that no urit or order in the nature of a mandomus tuouLd i.ssue uhen there is no failure to perform a mandatory dutg applies in this country as u.tell. Euen in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the saLutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied bg us, as it is in England, u.then a unt of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as ue find it set out in ' 1999 (6)ALD 144 t0 W.P. No.3a35 ol2023 Halsburll's Latu:; of England (3rd edilion, VoL1 3, P. 106): 'As o general rule the order uill not be gronted unLess lhe parTA complained of has knotun u,\at it tuas h.e utas required to do, so thot he hrul the means oJ consideing u.thether or not he s nould comytlg, and it must be shotun bg euideru:e that thert urus a distinct demctnd of that tuhictt tlrc par11t seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand Luas met by a refusaL". Front the aforementioned focts ond circumstor,.ces tt is clcar tltot the petitioners could not and drd not shou; t)'tat theg made a demond to the respondent and that was met uith refusal. Therefore, i'. ts not pos-\ible 1o issue the declaration sought for or tlrc consaquentinl direction commanding the resporu)ent herein to register tl'Le sale 'Ceeds proposed to be exeanted by the petitioners in Jauour of their purchasers. This uietu of mine gair,,s futL support from the decision of a Diuision Bench tf this Couft in D. Rcttnasundai Deui u- Commisstoner o Urbdn Land Ceilinq,

9. l;or the aforementioned reosons, tL,.e utrit petitiorLs fail and are accordingly di-smissed, but tuithout <osts. Hotueuer, this order u.till not pr'zclude the petitrcners from presenting the sale deeds for registration before the respondent. In su,:h an euerrt, I cLm sure, the respondent uill imm,ztliateLg discharge his statutory duties mentioned in lart XI glLthe Act and consider regbterabilitg of the sale dee:ds. I am ctl.so sure that in case the registrcttion is refused, he uilL certainly record the rearjc,rls as enjoinL:d bg Section 71 of the Act and funtbh a coptl tne,eof, rf the petitioners applg for the :;ame." NVSK, J Vr.P. No.3E36 of 2023

17. It is also relevant to refer the order passed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in K.Jayaram and others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and othera, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: - '1O. It is uell-settled that the jurisdiction exercised bg the Htgh Court under ArLicle 226 of the Constitution of Indta is extraordinary, equitable and di-scretionary ond it is imperatiue thot the petitioner approaching the u.tit court must come uith clean hands and put forutard all facts before tLrc Court uithout concealing or suppressing angthing. A litigant is bound to state oll facts u.thich are releuont to the Litigation. If he withholds some uital or releuant material in order to gain ad.uantage ouer the other side then he uLould be guiltg of plaging froud uLith the court as well as with the opposite parttes which cannot be countenanced. 1 1 . This Court in Prestige L@hts Ltd. V. Stdte Bank of India 1 lms Lleld that a prerogatiue remedA is not ouailable as a mat[er of aurse. In exercising ertroordinary pou)er, a wit court u.tould indeed bear in mtnd the conduct of the party tuhich is inuoking such juri-sdiction. If the applicant does not discLose full focts or suppresses releuant materiaLs or i.s othenube gailtg of misleading the court, the court mag dismiss the action utithout adjudicating the matter. It utas held thus:

33. It rs thus clear that though the appellant Company l.nd approoched the HiSh Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not " (ZOZZ) lZ Suprcme Court Cases 815 12 twsK, J tl.P. No.3A36 of 2023 candtdtu stated all the facts to the Court. The lligh Court is zxercising discretionary and extroorditary jurisdtction under ArLicle 226 of the ConstituLiort^ Ouer and aboue, o court of latu is also a coud of equtt1l. lt is, therefore, of utmost necessitg that uhen tt partA epprooches a High Courl, he rnust place ctl'. the fac:ts before the Court u.tithout ang resen-)atton.. If the-re is suppression of materia' .,'ctcts on the [tarl of the applicant or tutisted facts 4aue bee,n placed before the Court, the Lurit court maA refuse 1o enterlain the petition ond dismi:;s it uithr>ut errteing into meits of the mcltter."

12. ht lldgami Etnm Khadi Gramodgog Welfare Sansthcr dnd Another u. Sto,te oJ Utto.r Pradesh and Others2, lhb Court has reiterated that the tuit rernedq is on equitoble one and a person approaching a supeior court must come uith tt poir of clear. hands. Such person should not suo,oress anA matenal foct but also should not take re ccurse to le;gai proceedings ouer ond ouer ogain uhich dmounts to abuse of the process of latu.

13. IIK.D. Shartna a. Steel Authoritg of .Indid Limited and Others 3, it uas tteld thus: " 3 4 . 1'he juisdictio n of the Supreme Court unde,r t\rticle 32 and of the High Court under ,\rticle 226 of the Constitution is ertraordinary, ecn :.itable and discrelionary. Prerogatiue utrits menr-ioned ther e-in are issued for doing substantial just.ice. It is, lherefore, of utmost necessitg that the p<:titioner opproo ching the uit court must come uith clean hands, put fortuard all the facts before tLle courT Luitllout concettling or suppressing angthing and seek an appropiate reLief. If there is no candid disilosure of reLeuant and mateial facts or the l3 w-P_ !to.3a36 0f 2023 petitioner is guilty of mlsleading the court, his petition maA be dismi.ssed at the threshold utthout consideing the merits of the claim.

35. The underlging object has been succinctly stated bg Scrutton, L.J., tn the leoding case of R. u. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner in the follouting words: . .. it has been for manA Vears the rule of the court, and. one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, thot Lohen an applicant comes to the court to obtoin relief on an ex parte statement he should moke a fulL and fair disclosure of all the mateial facts-it sags facts, not lant-.t. He must not misstote the law if he can help it-the court is supposed to know the lout. But it knous nothing about the facts, ond the applicant must state fullA and fairly the facts; ond the penaltg bg tuhich the court enforces that obligation is that if it ftnds out that the facts haue not been fullg and fairlg stated to it, the court uLill set astde ang action uhich it has taken on the faith of tlrc imperfect statement."

36. A prerogotiue remedg is not a mqtter of course. While exerci.sing extraordinary potDer a urit court raould. certainly beor in mind the conduct of the pqrtA uho inuokes the jurbdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses moteial foct or attempts to mislead the court, the court maA d jsmiss the action on that ground oLone and mag refuse to enter into the merits of the case bg stating, "We tuilL not listen to Aour application because of what you hnue done." The rule hos been euoLued in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court bg deceiuing it.

1.4 W.P. Noia36 of 2023

37. In Kensington Income Ta-x. Commissioners. (supra), Liscount Reading, C.J. obserued: (Kg pp 495-96j "... Where on ex parte application has been made t<t this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Cou rt comes to the concluston that the a.fJidouit in suppul of the appLication uas not cand id and did rot fairlq state tlrc facts, but stated them in such a tuag as to mislead the Court os to l\,? true facts, tlrc Court ought, for its oun protection ctnd to preuent an abuse of its process, to reJuse to proceed ang further u-tith the examination of the meits. This is a potuer inherent in the Cout. but one ultich should onlg be used in cases u.thich bringl conuiction to the mind of the Court that it hos been deceiued. Before coming to this concLtt:;ion o care.fu.l examittation will be made of the flt<:ts as tlrcg are ond as they haue been stated m the applicant's affidauit, and euerything utill be: heard thal cdn be urged to inJluence the uiew of the Court u.then i.t reads the afftdauit and knouLs t,te tnte facts. But if tle result of this examination and heainlT is to leaue no doubt that the Court ha:; been dece:iu<:d, then it uill refuse to hear anqthing further from the applicont in a proceedingt uhich has onLy been set in motion bg means of a mis I e adit tg affda uit. "

38. The aboue principLes haue been accepte,l in our legctl s,lstem also. As per settled lou-t, the parly who inuokes the extraordinory jurisdiction of thts Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under ,\rticle 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all materol facts tuithout any reseruation euen if theA are against him He cannot be alloued to ptag "hide and seek" or kt "1tick and choose" the facts he likes to C;.sclose l5 NVS|( J w.P_ llo.3a36 0r 2023 and to suppress (keep back) or not to d.isclose (conceal) other facts. The uery basis of the utit jurisdiction resfs in disclosure of true and. complete (correct) facts. If mateial facts are suppressed. or distorted, the uery functioning of urit courts and_ exercise utould become impossible. The petitioner must d-iscLose all the facts hauing a bearing on the reLief sought without any qualification. This i.s because "the court knotas latu but not facts".

39. If the pimary object as hightighted. in Kensington Income Tax Commrs.(supra) is kept in mind, an applicant uho does not come tuith candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a uLit of the court uith "soiLed hands". Suppresston or conceolment of mateial /acts is not an oduocacg. It is a jugglery, monipuLation, manoeuuing or misrepresentation, uthich ha.s no place in equitable and prerogattue juisdiction. If the applicant d.oes not disclose all the material facts fairlg and trulg but states them in a distorted manner and. misleads the court, the court has inherent pouter in order to protect itself and to preuent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi ond refuse to proceed further tuith the examination of the case on merits. If th.e court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court utould be faiting in its duta. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt uith for antempt of court for abusing the process of the court." l6 IwSK, J w.P. No.3a35 of 2023

18. It is pertinen: to note that in the present case neither a refusal order was passcd nor alry reason was assigned in writing by the registering authori'.y denying registration and in f,:.r:t no dralt sale deed has been filed in the materiai papers.

19. ln this con:rection, it is significant to refe r the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti Sardarshahar and another Vs. Union of India and others wherein :rt para 11 observed as under: "11. It rs a settled proposition of law that zL party has to plead the case and produce/ zLclduce suffir:ient evidence to substantiate his subrnissions made in the pelition and in czLse the pleadings are not complete, the court is under no obligafion to entertain the pleas. ln Bh.arat Singh.v. State o.f Haryana [AIR 1988 SC 2IE 1l this Court tras observed as under : '' 13. . . . In our opinion, when a poi et rvhich is ostensibly a point of law is roquired to be substantiated by facts, t}e party raising the point, if he is the ririt petitir)ner. must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear fr om the writ petition and if he is rcspondent tl:re from the counter-affidavit If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexerl to the u.rit petition or to the counter- a-ffidzLvit, as the case may be, the Court will r ot entertain the point. There is a distincci:n .,/ ' AIR 20 I() SL]PRI.]MI (]oLJRT 2221 t7 w,P. no.Ja36 0f 2023 between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter- affidavit. While in a pleading i.e. a plaint or a written statement, the facts a.rld not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affi davit, not onlv the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it."

20. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce any documentary proof in support of his averment that he approached the registering authority i.e. respondent No.2 for registration of the subject document and the same was refused for registration. The petitioner could not even mention the date on which he had approached the respondent No.2. Therefore, it is difficult for this court to accept the statement of the petitioner that he had approached the registering authority for registration, more so, when that statement is specifically denied by the respondent, registering authority.

21. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Syal V. State of punjab6 dated

22.O5.2OO3, the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:_ "In order to sustain and maintain sanctitA and solemnitg of the proceedings in laut courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knouinglg, tnaccurate statements or 4tisrepresentation and/ or should not conceal material facts u_ti.th a design to gain some 6 2003 Supp( I ) SCR 242 / l8 w.P No.3a36 of 2023 odL)antaqe or beneft at the hands of the couri, Luhen cL court is considered as a place where rruth and justicrz are the solemn pursutts. If any partg atte,mpts to polLute such a place bg adopting recourse to make mbrepresentotion ond ls con.cectlittg matetr tl, facts ll does so at its 'isk ancj cost. Suclt partg must be readg to take consequences that foltou.t on account of its otun makitq. At times lenient or liberal or ger.erous treattner'.t ltg courts in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or lightlg taken insteaC of learning proper lesson. Hence there is a comtrte,LLing need to i ake seious uietu in such matters to ensure expected puity and grace in the administratirn of justice. "

22. In the aforeszrid case, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held that any false staremenr. in the petition is abuse of law and serious view has to be taken by Court. In the present case, the petitio.rer in order to suit his case and to secure an ordcr has tnade misleading averments. Hcncr:, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly thrs rr.rir perition is dismissed.

23. However, it ir; made clear that this order will rrot preclude the petitioner from presenting the subject document for regis tration be lore the registering authority, by duly following the due procedure as contemplated undel lau,. l9 tavsK, J w.P. Lo-3a36 of 2023

24. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if anY, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. EH. NAGABHUSHAMBA EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to SRI M.A.MUJEEB, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION' High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] One CC to SRI FARHAN AZAM KHAN, SC FOR WAKF BOARD TOPUCI Two CD CoPies. 1 2 3 4 BSK LS a -rr ltt a. HIGH COURT DATED: 1010212025 ORDER WP.No.3836 of 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t4 I rrE ST4 ( a J 3 15mn 26 a a t oqsPArcH eo t z //' .lI