High Court · 2025

Judgment

5. The State. of Telangana, Rep by its principal Secretary, Revenue Llepartment, Secretariat Hyderabad. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Office at Hyderabad. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad. The Joint Sub Registrar-|, Ranga Reddy, (RO) Ranga Reddy District The Urban Land Ceiling Authority, Hyderabad, at present rep. by the District Collector, Hyderabad. " ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in refusing to receive, register and release the lease deed and mortgage deed presented by the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring 0-'17.69 guntas or equivalent 2140 Sq.yards along with temporary structures in Sy.No.11l33, situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provision of the Registration Act, 1908 and in violation of Article '1 4 of the constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the 4th Respondent to receive, register & release lease deed and the mortgage deed in respect of land admeasuring o-17.69 guntas or equivalent 2140 sq.yards along with temporary structures in Sy.No.11l33, situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 4th Respondent to receive, register and release lease deed and the mortgage deed in respect of land admeasuring 0-i 7.69 guntas or equivalent 2140 sq.yards along with temporary structures in sy.No.11i33, situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAy plSSAy Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.3512 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following Prayer:- "to declare the action of the 4tt' Respondent in refusing to receitte, register and release the lease deed and mortSage deed presented by the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring 0' 17.69 guntas or equioalent 2140 Sq.yards along with temporary structures in Sy N0.11/33, situated at Khanamet Village, Seilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distict, as illegal, arbitrary, without juisdiction and contrary to the proaision of the Registration Act, 1908 and in aiolation of Article L4 of tfu Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4tn Respondent to receioe, register and release lease deed and the mortgage deed in respect of land admeasuring 0-17.69 . guntas or equiualent 2140 Sq.yards along with temporary structures in Sy No.11/33, situated at Khnnamet Village, Ser ili ngamp ally Mandal, Ran ga Re ddy D i s t r i c t. "

2. Brief facts to this writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 0-17.69 gtntas or equivalent 2140 Sq.yards along with temporary structures in Sy No.11/33, situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Manctal, Ranga Reddy District, having acquired the same through registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.8661 of 2076 dated 11.07.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner on 01.09.2021 executed a Lease deed in favour of M/s. Sreeven Ventures and approached registering authority for registration of lease deed. However, the same was refused and assigned pending document No.P/1250/2021. Aggrieved by same, petitioner filed W.P.No.28348 of 202'l and this Colurt oide interim order datecl 2 c(s-:

71.77-2021, directed ihe respondent authorities therein to register and releasc the pending Doc.No.p/1250/2021 and made clear that such registration would be subject to the outcome of the final orciers to be passed in W P.No 28348 of 2021. 3 Learne,d counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of lease dated 07 .09.2027 is expired and the petitioner had executed release lease deed. It is further submitted that petitioner by mortgaging the subject property -rtended to obtain loan from the fi.anciar institution ancl cxecuted a mortgage deed in respect of the'subject property and approached the respondent No.4 and requested to register the release lease deed and mortgage deed. However, the respondent No,4 orally refused to register the subject documents Aggrieved by the same present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitione. furthe, submitted that the respondent authorities are duty bound to receive, register and release the subject documents and in case of not registering, they shall assign reasons for refusal and pass orders accordingly. As such, it is prayed to direct the registerhg authori$ to register ancl release the subject documents presented in respect of the subject property.

5. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Stamps and Registra tion placed on record instructions issued by Deputy Collector 3 and Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, relevant portion is extracted here under:- "In this regard, it is submitted that, as per old reoenue records, the lands in Sy No.11 total admeasuring Ac. 359-09 gts of Khanamet aillage is classifed as " Patta" in the name of Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust. Later the land in Sy No. 11 together with others lantls in Khnnamet oillage holding by the " Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust" haoe been declared as Urban Land ceiling Surplus lands oide CC No. H1/4933/76. Hence the subject lands haue been notrfud in list of prohibitory property IJ/s.22-A of Registration Act, 1908 as the interest of the Gooernment is inuoloed. The contention of tfu Writ Petitioner herein is that to process the registration document in respect of temporary structure in SyNo. 11/33 of Khanamet uillage, uhereas, the abooe property which is being sought for registration is also part and parcel of ULC land declared aide CC No. Hla9fi/76 against declarant " Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust" . Hence this instant WP is fled with malaffu intention to grab the oaluable Gouernment land in Sy No. 11 of Khanamet oillage anil hence the same is liable to be dismissed in the interest of lustict."

6. Leamed Assistant Government Pleader has drawn attention of this Court to Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908, which reads as under:- "32. Persons to present documents for registration. - Except in the cases mentioned in 7 [sections 31, 88 and 89], eoery document to be registered under this Act, tuhether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper regis tr atio n -off ce, - (a) by some person execuhng or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a d-ecree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or (b) by the representatioe or assign of such a person, or (c) by the agent of such a person, representatiae or assign, duly authorized by pouer-of attomey executed and authenticated in manner her einaf ter me n tione d. 34. Enquiry before registuation by registering officer. - (1) Subject to the prooisions contained in this Part and in sections 4 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registeted uwler this Act, unless tlu persons executing such document, or their reprcsct ftatittes, assipns or agents authoized as .aforesaid' appear'beforc tlrc registering olfcer toithi-n-the- hme allorued for prt:sentation ttrriar sections 23,24, 25 and 26'" LearnedAssistantGovernmentPleaderfurthersubmittedthatthe procedure for seeking registration of a document is that the parties first and foremost have to execute the document by signirg the document and by following the provision contemplated under Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908 and shall present the document before the registering authority. I-Ie would further submit that the parties have to pay registration charges, stamp duty and other incidental charges by way of challan and the estimated amount for the same will be available in IGRS website, wherein Stamp duty and registration charges will be calculated, enabling the parties to Pay the challan Thereafter' the parties shall approach the registering authority' enclosing the challan along with the relevant documents, which proves that the parties have approached ancl made a ProPer presentation of document sough for registration. However, in the Preset case the petitioner had not enclosed the copy of challan, and no applications are filed as a proof that the petitioner had approached the respondent No 4'

8. Strongly disputing the contentions of the petitioner learned Assistant Covernment Pleader submitted that tlee petitioner neither 5 approached the respondent No.4 nor presented any documents for regishation. As such, the question of refusal by the respondent does not arise, and therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondent to register the so called proposed release lease deed and mortgage deed.

9. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Regishations appearing for respondents and perused the material available on record.

10. In the present case, it is relevant to refer the order dated

24.72.2024, passed by this Court in W.P.No.36081 of 2024. The relevant paragraphs are extracted here under:- "10. lt is not out of the place to obserae that this Court on many occasions obserued that the petitioners in their urit ffidauits are stating that the Sub-Registrars are orally refusing to register the documents. lt is striking to note that the parties in order to ensure that the document presented for registration shall not be rejected,/refused for registration are fling wit petitions uithout following procedure contemplated under Section 32 arut 34 of the Registration Act 1908, and are trying to seek orders by misleading the Court. Many of such instances haoe come to the notice of this Court. 11. Under those circumstance, it is releoant to refer the order dnted 19.08.1999, passed in Deaerneni Linga Rao Vs, Sub- Registrar, Pedilapallil. The releaant paragraphs are extracterl lure under:- "8. The uell established Rule, subject to certain exceptions, is tlut tlw applicant for mtndamus ntust shou by eaidence, tlut he marle a demand calling upon the concerned authority to perform his I r sss {o1lro1na \ 6 pubhc duly and thot toas mct llith refusal either bytuo s or by couluct Applying this salutnry rule, thc Apex Court in Sarasrtati Inrlustrial Syndicate Ltd Etc., a.- Union of India, thus : "..... Tlu poutrs of tle High Court under Article 226 arc not sticthl confncd to tle lintits to tohich proceedings fur prerogafiae u'its nrc suhjt'ct itt F,nglish practice. Nettertlulass, the uell- recogttisr ruk' tlnt no rurit or order in the nature of a runndnmus u,oukl tssuc tulut there is uo t'nilure to perform a nundatory duty a1tplits tt tltis country ns uvll. Etten in caes of allegetl ltreachcs oJ' nnndnlonl dutir:s, lla salutary general rule, uhich is subject to re rt n rrl.tlltions, npplitd hy us, as it is in Englnnd, zulun a uril of nmntlrunus ts nsktd for, could be stated as ue fnd it st t out in Hnlsbunl s l.aus of F-ngland (3rd edition, Vol.13, P.706): As a g,:ru,raL rule tlrc ordcr utill not be granted unless the party complatned of lns knotun ruhnt it was lu was required to do, so thal hc lnd tfu ntems of consideing whether or not he should conryly, nni it must he shoun by euidence that thtre was a distinct dL'nnnd of tlut uhich the party xeking the mandnmus desin:s Lo tnt'orce, nnd tlnt tlnt dentand zoas met by a refu*tl" . t^rom tlu nforenrcntioned t'acts and circwnsttnces it is clear that tlte pelttio ers cot d not nnd did not sloto that tlcy made a dennnd to the respondent arul that uas met with refusal. Thcrefon,, it is not possihle to isst& the declnration sought for or lla conx,qntttinl direction commanding the respondent lurein to registtr tlu' salc dteds proposed to be exeatted by the petitioners in t'ntotrr of lhtir purclLa*rs. T'ltis uitto of mine gains lull support f om tlLt' tfu ision of n Ditision Bench of this Court in D. Rnttutsrttttlnrr [)ct,i t,. Contntissioner o Urban Ltnd Czilirr a. f

9. For tlrc njtrtmentionetl rensons, tlu toit petihons fail and are acmrdtngly disntisvd, but toithout costs. Howeuer, this order u'ill not pt,clrult the pehtioncrs lrom presenting tlrc sale deeds for rcgistrnln bct'ore tlre respondent. ln such an eaett, I am sure, tlLe reqtondcnt toill imnrcdiately discharge his statutory dutbs nentioned m Pnrt XI of the Act and, consitbr registurability oJ tlu snle dteis. I nm nlso surc tlul in cas the registrahon is refuxrL hc uill certninly record lfu reasons as enjoined by Section 71of tlu Act nnd t'urrLish t copv tfureof, if the petitioners apply for the sa rc."

12. It is nlso releuiflt to refer the order passed by the Hon'ble Suprcnrc Court in K.layaram and others Vs. Bangalore Deoelopment Authoity and other2, the releoant paragraphs are e racted hererr nder:- ' t2O22l l2 Sttnrcme (',,un ( ase: 815 '7 "10.1t is toell-yttlcd tlut tlu jurisdiction exerci*d by the High Court under Artbb 226 of the Constitution of lndia is ettraordinary, equitnble and discretiorury and it is imperatiae that the petitioner aryroaching tfu wit couft must come ?uith clean hands and put forusrd all facts belore the Court without concealing or suryressing snything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are rel-eoant to the litigation. If he withholds nme z.tital or releaant material in order to gain afutantage ozrer the other side tlrcn he zuould be guilty of playing lraud with tlu court as well as toith tle opposite ptrties which cannot be counterutnced. 1-1. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd V. State Bank of lndia 1 has held that a prerogatiae remedy is not aoailable as a rratter ol courx. ln exercising extraordinary pouer, d wit court would indeed bear in mind the conduct of tfu party uhich is inooking such juisdiction. lf the applicant daes not d.isclose Jull facts or suppresses releuant naterinls or is otherwise guilty of mislcading lla court, the court may dismiss the action uithout adjudicating the matter. lt uas held thus: "33. lt is thus cbar thot though the apryllant Company had approached tlu High Court undtr Article 226 of the Constitution, it hnd not candidly stated. all thz facts to the Cnurt.'fhe High Court is exercisitrg discretbnary and extraord.inary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Oaer and aboae, a court of lau is also a court of equity. lt is, thereJore, of utmost nectssity thnt when a party approachts a High Court, he must place nll the fucts before thc Court witlnut any re*roation. If there is suppression of matcrial facts on the part of the awlicant or tuisted facts httn bean placed bet'ore the Court, the u)rit court may refux to entertutin the petition and. d.ismiss it tuithout enteing into meits of the natter."

12. ln Udyami Euam Khadi Grumoilyog Welfare Sanstha and Another a. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others2, this Court has reiterated that the wit remedy is an equitahle one ud. a person approaching a supeior court mu6t come with a pair of clean hnnds. Such person should not suppless any mateial fact but nlso sltould not tttl(! recours to legal proceedings oaer and oaer again which amounts to abuse of the process of law.

13. In KD. Sharma o. Steel Authoity ol lnilia Limiteil and Others 3, it tuas hekl thus: "34. Tfu jurixiiction of the Supreme C-ourt under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution its extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogatioe urits mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. lt is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner awroachitg tle utrit court must cone uith cltan lunds, put fononrd. all the facts before tle court uithout concealing or suppressing anything and *ek an appropriate relief. lf there is no candid disclosure of 8 relcuant irul mtlterial facts 01' the petitioner is guilty of misleading tlt court, lris petition nny be disrttissed at tlu threshold without considerirry tlt merits ol the claint. 35. T.ln urulertying object lus been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.1., in lfu: Iending cax of R. a. Kensington Income Tax Corunissiotrcr in the t'olloruing ruorrls: . .. it lns brct t'or afly Veat's the rulc ol the court, and one which it ts of tht grentest imPortance lo maintain, that when an applicant conzs to the rcurt to oblain relicf ot nn er parte stntement lu should nnkr n lult nnd lair tlisclosure of all the matcrial t'acts - it snys t'acLs, not laut. Hc nrust nol missta? the lau if ht can help it -tlu court is stLpyosctl to knotu the lau But it knows nothing about tlu' fttcts, and tle npplicnnt nrust state t'ully and t'airly the facts; anct tlrc pcnalnl by ruhich llu court enJorces that obligation rs thnt if it Jittds out tlmt tlu t'acts luue not been fulLy and faitly stnted to it, tlt court rutll vt aside any action uhich it has tal<en on tlt t'alth of the intpert'ect statenent." 36. A prerogntiue rurcdy is ot a matter of autse. While exercisitrg rrtraordinnry pouer n uit court toould ertainly bear in nind tht condtLct of the party uln inookes the juisdiction of tlr court. If tln npplicant makes n falx statement or suPPresses nnterittl fnct or ntt,etlPts to mislead tle court, the court may dismiss the oc tiott on tlnt ground alone and mny reluse to efittr into tlu rcrits of tfu cnx by stnting,'We uill not listcn to your applicatiotr hecause of uhat you lnoe done." Tfu rule has been ettofued. itt tle larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants f om nbustttg tfu prttcr:ss of court by fuceitting it. 37. ln Kmsington Income Tax Commissionerc.(supra), Viscotnt R&dittg, C.l. obxntd: (KB pp. a95-96) " .' lMure nn u pnrtc qplicntion hts been nnde to thrs Arurt t'or a rule nisi or other proccss, tf thc Court co Es to tln mnclusion tlat the alfdaait m *pport ol tlu applicntion ruas not candid and did not fiirly stat,: thtt facts, ltut staturl tluru in such a way as.to mislcad thc Court as to tlu, lrue ltcts, the Court ought, t'or its oun protectio ttnd to prntcnt nn nbuv of its process, to rcfus to proctcd nty ftrrtfur tuith the enmination ol thi meits. This is.a .pouer inherr:nt in tlrc Court, but one uhich should only be used-in 'cnvs tohiclt bring contiction to ttu mind of the Court tfut it has beet tleceiterl. Bet'ore coming to this conclusion a careJul exantination tuill he nLadt ol ttz t'ncts as they are and as they hau hcen stnletl in the nppticmt's affdauit, antl eaerything will be lrcard tlnl ctn be urgL'd to influence the ueto of the Court zuhen it rends tht affidnoit nntl knotL,s tlrc true facts. But if the result of this craninatiotr nnd lrcaing is to lenue no doubt thnt tht Court hns been dtctirttrl, ttun it toilt ret'ux to hcar anything Jurther ftom the npplicanl itt n proteeding u,hich has only been xt in motion by nrnns of o wislenling n[f dnttl.''

38. Tlt ,thot'c princrl cs ha?e been accepted in our legal system trlso. As ptr stttlatl [ntv, tlr pnrty utho ittt'okes tfu extrnordinary 9 jurisdiction of this Court undtr Article 32 or of a High Cnurt under Articlc 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be trutht'ul, frank and open. He must tlisclose all mateial facts uithout any reyraation eaen if tlvy are lgainst him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide antl seek" or to "pick and chooy" thz facts he liles n tlisclose antl to suppress Q<eep back) or not to tlisclox (conceal) other facts. The uery basis of the writ juisdiction rests in disclosure of true nnd complete (correct) facts. lf material facts are suppresxd or distorted, the uery functioning ol uit courts and exercise utould become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the t'acts haaing a bearing on the relief sought without any qualifcahon. This is because " tlu court knows Law but not facts" .

39. If the pimary object as highlighted in Kensington lncome Tax Cnmmrs.(supra) is kept in mind, an applicant who des not conv toith candid lacts and "clean breast" cannot hold a wit of thc court uith "soiled hands". Suppression or concedment of material facts is not an aduocacy. It is a juggbry, manipulahon, manreutting or misrepreentation, u.thich has no place in equitable and prerogatiue juisdiction. If tfu applicnnt drxs not disclos all the mateial facts fairly ancl truly but states thtm in a distorbd manner nnd misle s the court, the court his inherent power tn order to protect itself antl to preoent an abu* of its process to disclwrge the rule si and ret'ux to proceed t'urther with the exsmination of the cax on nteits. lf the court does not reject thz petition on tlut ground, tlu court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with lor contempt of court for tbusing the process of tfu aurt." ln the case on hand, the petitioners at paragraph No.3 of the

13. torit alfdauit staled the follotoing- ".....1 further submit thnt I intended to alienate the aboue said property to the petitioner No.2 and 3, who are prospechne purchasers and prepared the Sale Deed to present the same before the Respondent No.3 along with necessary link ilocuments to transfer the same in faaour of Petitioner No.2 and 3, but to my surpise, thz Respondent No.3 herein refitsed to receite the documents to registration, for tohich the acts of Respondent No.3, I and the Petitioner No.2 and 3 are sulfering from great hardship and mental agony,. . ...." 14. It is Pertinent to note that in the present case neither a refusal order uas pnssed nor any reason'was assigned in writing by the respondent No.3 denying registration and infact the d.raft sale deerl fled in the material papers is unsigned. The learned counsel for the petihoners, u,ho ueifed the pleadings of wit affdaait, had misrepresented the facts and tied to secure an order.

15. In this connection, it is signifcant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan t0 Pradesh Vaiilya Samiti Sardarshahar and another Vs. llnion of India and otheF uherein at para 71 obseraed as under: "71. It is a scttled proposition of lazu thnt a party has to plead the case nnd produce/adtl.ucc suficient euidence to substantiate his submissions madc m tla petition and in case the plmdings are not complcte, the court is utdtr no ohligatron to entertain the pleas. In Bhtrat Singh u. Stnte of Haryana IAIR 1988 SC 2151] this Court lns ohsen'ed ns rmder : f ar from the utrtt netition md i "1j. ... tn our opinion, tuhtn a point uhich is ostensibly a point ol latu is required lo IE substontiated by facts, the pnrty raising tht point, if he is tle uit pe titbner, must pleatl and prooe such fucts bu euidence lu is tlu res ndent tohich ntust a munter-affitlaoit If the facts are not pbadLd or thc eudtnce it support oJ such facts is not annercd to lhe urit petition or to tle counter-affdauit, as the cax nny fu, tlu Court uill not entertain tfu poittL. Tlure is s distinction betuteen a plending under tfu Code of Ciail Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-afidntit. Wile m n pleading i.e. a plaint or a lt)ntte stntenu,nt, the lncls ond nol eudence are required to be pleaded, in a ruril petition or in tfu counter-affidmtit. not onlu the facts but also the ct,idettce in proof of sudt facts hau to be pleaded and annercd to it. " DO

16. In nry considered oieu, the aforesaid submission of the learned Assistant Goaerrunent Pleader is r)ell founded. Admittedly, the petitioners did not produce any doatmentary proof in suryort of their aoerment that tluy had creanted and presented the sale deed for regtstration before respondent No.3, and tht same was refused for registration. The petitioners could not euen mention the date on uthich thty lmd approaclrcd tlrc respondent. Therefore, it is dfficult for thrs Court to nccept the statement of the petitioners that they had fipproach-ed the respondent authority for registration, more so, tuhen that statement is specifcally denied by tlrc respondent. 17. At this stage, tt is releoant to refer the order passed by the Hon'ble Suprenrc Court in Vijay Syal V. State of Punjaba dated 22.05.200i, the releunnt paragraph is extracted hereunder:- "ln order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solcmnity of the proceedings in latLt courts it is necessary thnt parties should not make fnlse or knouirtgly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and,/or should not conceal mnterial facts llith a design to gain some adztantaSe or beneft nt the lmnds of tht court, uhen a court is considered as n place tLtlrcre tntth and justice are thc solemn pursuits. If any party att(,mpts to pollute such a place by ad.optittg recourse to make misrepresenta I iotl and is concealing material facts it does so at ' etR 2o to supnEME couR r 222 I 4 2O0i s'rpp( l) scR 2.12 ( ( its.isk and cost. Such par$ must be ready to take consequences that follozu on account of its oun making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or lightly taken instead of liarning proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take serious iiew in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of iustice.,, 18. ln the aforesaid case, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held that any false statement in the pehtion is abuse of law and seious atell has to be taken by Court. in the present case, the pefitioners in ordcr to suit their case antl to secure an order haoe made misleading aoerments. Hence, this urit pehtion is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly this zurit petition is dismissed. 19. Howeoer, it is made clear that this orfur uill not preclude the-petitioners from presenting the subject document for registrafion before the registering authority, by tluiy foilowing th" dr, -procedure as conlemplaled under lnu.,'

11. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, subject documents sought for registration are release lease deed and mortgage deed and the same are not executed in terms of Section 32 and, 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 and even a copy of release lease deed is not enclosed in the material papers of writ petition.

12. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the order dated, 09.07.2024 passed by this Court in Anantha Rameshwari Devi vs. state of Telangana (W.P.No.16799 of 2024 and batch), wherein this Court has issued certain guidelines to the Registering authority as well as to the concerned parties and for ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order are extracted hereunder:_ I I \ t2 r ONS TO CONCERNED PARITES ,,INSTRUCT'] i) The concerned parties sh(tll make an eJfort to see that their presence is 'Book/Entry recorded in the watch Register/General Diary (GD BooURegister), if any mainlained by the Sub llegistrar.s offce to ensuie that they have approached the Sub Registrar's office, so is to avoid the r.epeated instructions from the authorities that rhe parties/petitioners have not approached the Sub Registrar,s o1ficc or )tol presented an1, proposed documents for registration and lhey havc not or;tb, refused f;r registration. ii) Before approaching lhe Registrar's olfice, porties ni st ensure thal the proposed property is not irt the prohibilei lisr, if it i.s fountt in the prohibited list, they shall talrc oppropriota steps b deleti the subject property f'om the prohibited list, in accordance ytith lav,, but nol to approach the Court on the ground that the Sub Rc,gistrar is orally rcfusing tu receive and regisler the subject property. iii) Presentation oJ the proposed documents shoutd be in compliance roith the provisions of the Registration Act. 15. It is needless to say that the Commissioner & Inspector General of Stamps and Registration see to it that the crfuresaid guidelines shall scrupulously be .followed by the Re gistering Aullrcrities. "

13. In the case on hand, the subject documents sought for regiskation are not executed in terms of Section 32 and 34 of the Regishation Ac! 1908 and in absence of same, relief sought for registration of such documents carutot be considered. lq. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits, fails and accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. without costs. SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 0 SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) To,

1. 11 LR Copies 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 7

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

4. One CC to SRI VIJAY PISSAY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies BSR BS .:.r!1F{}-':-1:--; 'af HIGH COURT DATED: 0710212025 t ORDER WP.No.3512 of 2025 ( e (-) i:, Tv\EST4re' \ I ? 4 FIB 2[25 \ I t t J 9r, h rl'.,^.o) DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS r:-lC,*,i8