B Gowra Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh) and the judgment of this Honourable Court in W.P. N

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N'V' SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.345 8 of 2024 ORDER: The Pelitioner 1S aggrieved y the action of the in not entertaining Respondent registration authoritie may be Presented bY and registering the sale deed whic the petitioner in respeci of the flat bearing of Plot No'22 Eastern Part in survey Nos'47Part and 48 admeasurrng ituated at BoduPPal 100 Sq Yards or 83.6 Sri Mtrs orporation, McdiPallY Village under BoduPPal' MuniciPal IVlandal, N{edchal-lvlalkaj giri Distrt t, SRO UPPaI on the ground that the said ProPertY ts art of the waql gazette S1.No.2746 hled the notification ctated 09'02 7989 a present Writ Petition ned cottnsel aPPeanng S?,,. =.ounand,

2. Heard for the Petitioner and learned Assistarnt Government Pleader for StamPs and Regt tration aPPearing for respondent Nos' 1 to 3' Perused i e record q \VSK.J r,\'. P.No.345U8 of 2O24 2 l I

3. Facts in brief as stated in the Writ petition are as follows: Petitioner claims to be the purchaser of plot No.22 Eastern Part in survey Nos.4TPart and 48 admeasuring 100 Sq Yards or 83.6 Sq Mtrs Situatecl at Boduppal Viilage under Boduppai h,Iunicipal Corporation, Medipaiiy Mandal, Medchal-Malk:rjgiri District, SRO Uppal (herein after referred as 'subjlct property) from its vendor who earlier purchased'the subject property by a sale deed bearing No.11760 of 2Ol7 registered at S.R.O., Uppal, Medcha-t-Ma,lkaj giri district.

4. Thereafter on 26.11.2024, the petitioner enquired with respondent No.3 for registration and was informed that on the instructions of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 was requested not to entertain and register the sale deed in respect of the subject property on the ground that the said land is part of Waqf Gazettee notihcation bearing No.6A dated 09.02.1989 at S1.No.2746. It is ftrrth.er submitted that on verification of copy of the said 7 NVSK,J W.P No.34 566 oI 2024 J notification, it is observed that Sl. No.2746 does not refer to the land in Sy.Nos.47 Part and 48 of Boduppal village at all and the said Gazettee notifi ation was set aside bY this Court in batch of Writ Petiti s in a W.P.Nos. 12275 of 1993, 25392 of 1996 and 681 ol 1997 io B. Gowra Reddg u. Gouernrnent of And Pradesht conhrmed by the Hon'ble SuPreme Court. It is further submitted that when once the said..notific ion itself is set aside, respondent No.4 is required to r ister any sa,le deed in respect of the subject land.

5. Referring to the orders Pa W.P.No.21896 of 2023 dat W.P.No.16142 of 2023 dated 1 sed by this Court in 11 .12.2023 and d 07 .2023, it is further submitted that the action of the registration authorities in not entertaining and registeri g the sa-le deed which may be presented bY the Petiti ner in respect of the subject property 1S patently ille al and impermissible # ' ?oo2 G)ALT 4t9 \ vr. ts. i\o..J4 srJrJ r)r _l()-rq ..-\:- 'l 4 Questioning the same, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition

6. Respondent No.3 filed counter and submitted that the Pctitioner has not presented any document for registration and further submits that petitioner orally cnquired in thc office and had not given chance to the Respondent No.3 either to receive, process, register or refusc thc document on the grounds mentioned in Rule 161 r/w. Scction 71..of the Registration Act, 190g by presenting the duly executed Sale deed with challan evidencing remittance of the duties.

7. It is lurther submitted that the Telangana State Wakl Roard has issued a letter F.No.PROTIMDCLI2OIO dated O9-O2-2O22 informing that the property in Sv.No.47 Part and 48 situated ir.r Boduppal village is notified as Wakf property, among other survey numbers and the subject property is listed in the Gazette No.6-4 dated 09-02-19g9 and included in .1d?: NVSK,J w. P. No.345tJ8 oI2024 ) the prohibitory list under the rovlslons of Section 22_ A(1)(C) of the Registration Ac . Thereafter respondent No.3 requested the State W Board, vide letter dated 23.O8.2O24 to take necessary a tion in view of the orders of the High Court in W.A.Nos.7 5 and 868 of 2OO2,778 and 885 of 2OO2 and. 729 d 878 of 2O02 dated

21.O3.2011 dismissing the Writ Wakf Board. The said appeals ppeals filed by the State ere challenged in this State Wakf Board has Court earlier and the Te,largan been requested to Brovide th updated modihcation details, if any, to the Commi sroner and Inspector_ General of Registration and Stam s, Telangana. 8 It is further submitted th t the Telangana State Government issued Registr tion Rules under G.O.Ms.No.l2l (Revenue_Regis atron-I) Department, clated 01 .06.2016. Rule 239-8 stip "239-B:The Wakf Board. shall maintain a Register of Auqaf containing ihe purt culars of all Wakf properties qnd all title dee s and documents lates as follows: NVSK,.: w.P.No.34588 of 2O24 6 l relattng thereto. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Wakf Act, 1995, prouides that the Board shall forward the detail.s of properties entered- in the Register of Auqaf to the concerned larud. record. offi.ce hauing juisdiction ouer the Wakf property. Tlrc concerned Lan.d record offi.ce, in turn, under Sub-section (3), sliall either make necessary entries in the land record or communicate its objections to the Board within six months from the date of regbtration of the Wakf propertA under Section 36. After completing this process, the Chief Executiue Officer of the Tetangana State Wakf Board shall update all records u_tith the concerned Reuenue offi.cials and furnisLt llsfs o/ immouable properties falling under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, including any sub s e quent additio ns, deletions, or mo clifi.cations, to the District Registrar and the Inspector-General of Registration und,er proper acknoutted,gment in Forms V and VI of Appendk XI. These Lists shall be signed bg the Chief Exeantiue Officer of the Telangana State Wakf Board." NVSK,J w. P.No.34588 ot 2024 7

9. It is further submitted that e said Rule empowers the State Wakf Board to lurnis lists of immovable properties falling under Section 22-A(Il (C) of the Registration Act, including S bsequent additions, deletions, or modifications, the Registration Department. Hence, ResPond ts Nos. 1, 2, and 3 remain passive observers in this atter until the State Wakf Board initiates the dqletion o the property's Survey numbers based on th,e High C urt's adjudication 1n varl0us petitions, AS stated by e Petitioner and the State Wakf Board, vide Letter d ted 23.08.2024 was requested to take necessar5z actio in view of the orders of the High Court in the aforesai Writ Appeals, which were dismissed.

10. Learned Assistant Governme t Pleader has drawn attention of this Court to Sectio s 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908, which reads as unoer:- "32. Persons to present registration.-Except in the in 1 [sections 3], 88 and 891, e ocuments for es mentioned ery document to l\'.I'. No 34 588 ol2024 8 be regtstered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration-office,- (a) bg some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copA of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or (b) ba the representatiue or assign of such a person, or (c) by the agent of such a person, representatiue or assign, duly authorized by pouLer-of attorneg executed and authenticated in menner he reinaft e r me ntio ne d.

34. Enquiry before registration bg registering ofJicer.-(l) Subject to the prouisions contained in this Part and in sections 41,43,45,69,75,77,88 and 89, no document shall be registered und.er tLis Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatiues', assigns or agents authorized. as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allou,,ed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26."

11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the procedure for seeking registration of a document is that the parties first and foremost have to execute the document by signing the document by following the provisions contemplated under Sections 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908 and shal1 present the document before the registering authority by paying 1 #Uu=q7' NVSK,J W P. No.34588 of 2024 9 registration charges, stamp d ty and other incidental charges by way of challan and e estimated amount for the same will be available in IG S website, enabling the parties to pay the challan. The after, the parties shall approach the registering authori , enclosing the cha-llan aiong with the relevant documen s, which proves that the parties har,e approached and m e a proper presentation of document sough for regis tion. However, in the present case, the petitiorler has ot enclosed the copy of challan, and no applircation was filed as a proof that the petitioner had approached the re pondent No.3. L2. Learned Assistant Govern ent Pleader has also placed on record, the circular in tructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector Ge era-l of Registration and Stamps, Telarlgana, Hyderaba uide Circular Memo No.G3/9I22 /2024, dated 12.08 2024, wltich reads as under:- \.. NVSK.d W. P.No.34588 of 2024 I i l0 "Attention of the Sub-Registrars and. Offi.cers in the address entry is inuited to the reference cited, u.therein Hon'ble High Court, while d.isposing the W.p No.16836/2024 and batch cases, dated: 09-07-2024 issued common orders uith certain guid,elines to the Registration Authoities and instructions to concerned parties. In compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the follou,ting instructions are issued.. i) Wheneuer parties/ citizen approach to register the documents, the concented Sub-Registrar, shall as expeditiouslg as possible preferablg u..tithin one u_eek, either reQister the doanment or pass refusal ord,er, in terms of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Ac| 1899 ond communicate the same to the concerned parties. ln no case, the Sub-Registrars shall not refuse the documents orally for registration, and it must be followed by a utitten refusal ord.ers. ii) In case doanments are refused for registration, the Sub-Registrars shall inform the procedure for refiind. of Stamp Dutg ond registration charges to the concerned parties/Citizens clearlg. The refund shalt be strictlg as per Indian Stamp Act, jB99 and Registration Act, I 908. iii) Sub-Registrars shall maintain a uatch Register/ General Diarg (GD Book/ Entry Book/ Register) at euery Sub-Registrar Office and to make enties of the parties approaching the office on a particular date and time for the purpose for which theg approached, the office, so as lo auoid interference, tampiring ana misrepresentation. In uieu of the ab directed to maintcrin prdforma. oue Sub-Registrars are herebg a Register in the follou,ting 6 NVSK,J W.P.No.34588 oI2024 sl.No All the Sub- Registrars hall inuariably maintain orma tn their offi.ce and ng public to the office to ture reference. the register in the aboue p shall be kept open to the ui S record their purpose for the The District Registrars sha Registers are opened and Sub-Registrar OJftce orl regu iu) The registering. autho ties shall follou,, the guidelines issued in the cas s of Vinjamuri Rajagopla Chary Vs. State of Andhra adesh and M/ s. Inuecta d Vs. Gouernment of Technologies Priuate Limit Andhra Pradesh. ensure that the aboue maintained in the each r basis. These instructions If ang deui scrupulously oction uill disciplinary instntcticns will not supe prescribea fcr uarious se department." sho"ll be follouted tion is found, suitable be initiated. 'l"hese ede the citizen charter ces rend.ered bg the

13. Learned Assistant Governrn nt Pleader submits that in the circular dated 12.08.2024, the sub-registrars rvere directed to register/refuse the documents presented before them, Culy following the idelines issued in the cases of Vinjamuri Rajagopla Chary Vs. State of {D NVSK,J \\/. P. No 34588 of 2024 t2 Andhra Pradesh2 and M/s. lnvecta Technologies Private Limited Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh3 a:-rd pass order, as expediticusly as possible, preferably, within one week from the date of receipt of the documents.

14. Strongly disputing the contentions of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner neither approached the respondent No.3 nor presented any document lor i'egistration. As such, the question of refusal by the respondent does not arise, and therefore, a writ of maldamus cannot be issued directing the respondent to register the so called proposed sa-le deed.

15. It is not out of the place to observe that this Court on many occasions obsenzed that the petitioners in their writ aflidavits are stating that the Sub-Registrars are ' zot6 1z; eto zt6 (F'B) : 20 t5 scc on t-,ne Hr-d 407 ' zozt l1ett ztz t NVSK,.J W.P.No-34588 of 2024 orally refusing to register the do uments. It is striking to note that the parties in ord r to ensure that the document presented for regi tration shall not be rejected/refused for registration are hling writ petitions without following procedure con mplated under Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Ac 1908 are trying to seek orders by misleading the Court any of such instances have come to the notice o[ this C urt.

16. Under those circumstance. t is relevant to refer the order dated 19.08.1999, passed i Deverneni Linga Rao Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapallia he relevant paragraphs are extracted here under: "8. The well established Rul exceptions, is that the appli must show by euidence, that calling upon the concerned au public dutg and that tuas rne bgwords or bg conduct Applgi the Apex Court in Saraswati Ltd Etc., u.- Union of India, t , subject to certain ant for mandamus he made a demand horily to perform his with refusal either this salutarg rule, ustictl Sgndicate ' r 999 161nLo raa NVSK,.I !v P No.34588 of 2024 t4 "..... Tlrc pou)ers oJ' the HigLt Court wtder Article 226 arc not strictlA confi,ned to the limils to uthich proceedings for prerogatiue urits are sub.iect in English practice. Neuertheless, the wetll rt:cogruised ntle that no Lurit or order in the nctture of a mandamus would issue u,then there is no failure to perform a marud"atorA duty applies in lhr.s countrA as tuell. Duen in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the saLutary gene-ral nile, which is subject to certain exceptions, o1-tplied bg us, as it is in England, when a utrit of rnandamus is asked for, could be stated as u)e ftnd it set out in Halsbury's Lau,s of England (3rd edition, Vol.13, P. 106): 'As a general rule the order u.till not be granted unless the partg complained of has knoutn tuhat it was he LUas required to do, so tltal lte h.ad the medns of considering whether or not lrc should complA, and it must be shown bg euide:nce that there was a distinct demand of that uthich the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand tuas met by a refusaL". From the aforementtoned facts and circutnstances it is clear that the petitioners could not and did not shou that they made a demand to the respondent and that was met with refusal. There.fore, it is not possible to issue the: declaration soughl for or the consequentiaL direction commanding the respondent herein to register the sctle deeds proposed to be executed bg the petitioners in fauour of their purchasers. This uieut of mine gains full support from thet decision of a Diuision Bench of fhis Court in D. Ratnasundai Deui u. Commissioner of Urban Land Ceilinq .L ,l t5 NVSK,J W.P.No.34588 oI 2024

9. For the aforementioned petitions fail and are accordi utithout cos/s. Howeuer, t preclude the petitioners from deeds for registration before such an euent, I am sure, immediatelg discharge hls mentioned in Part XI o t registerabilitg of the sale de that in case the registralion certainly record the by Section 71 of the thereof, if the petitioners apply or the same." reasorus, the writ gly dismissed, but order will not resenting the sale the respondent. In respondent tuill statutory duties Act and consider s. I am also sure is refused, he utill reas NS 0s erloined Act a d furnish a copa L7. It is also relevant to refer t e order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Ja ram and others Vs. Bangalore Development Auth ity and others, the relevant paragraphs are extracted ereunder:- "10.ft is uell-settled that exercised bg the High C 226 of lhe Constitution extraordinary, equitable and it is imperatiue that the peti the urit court must come uit put fonaard all facts before concealing or suppressing an bound to state all facts uLhi the litigation. If he utithho releuant material in order t ouer the other side then he the jurisdiction urt. under Article India is discretionary and oner approaching clean hands and he Court uithout thing. A litigant is h are releuant to s some uital or gain aduantage ould be guilty of t 1ZOZZ\ tZ Suprcme Cou( Cases 815G , \\ \\ .I,. No 3-+58E ul2024 N\S l6 plaging fraud utith the court as well as uith the opposite parties uhich cannot be countenanced. 1 1. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Ba.nk of India t has held that a prerogatiue remedu is not auailable as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary poLuer, o uit court tuould indeed bear in mind. the conduct of the party uhich is inuoking such juisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppres$es releuant materials or is otheru.tise guiltg of misleading the court, the court maA dismlss the action utithout adjudicating the matter. It utas held thus: "33. It ls fhus clgar that though the appellant Compang had approached the High Court under Article )26 of the Constitution, it had ruot candidlg stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court ls exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Ouer and aboue, a courl of latu ls also a court of equitg. It is, therefore, of utmost necessitg that when a partA approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court ulithout a-nA reseruation. If there is suppression of mateial facts on the part of the applicant or tuisted facts haue been placed before the Court, the utrit court mag refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it tptthout enteing into merits of the matter." 12. In Udgami Eaam Khadi Grannodgog Welfare Sanstha and Another u. State of Uttqr Pradesh and Others2, this Court has reiterated that the wit remedg is an equitable one and a person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. Such ;lr @ W.P No 3458U of 2024 T1 person should not suppress but also should not take proceedings ouer qnd o amounts to abuse of the p ang material fact recourse to legal r again which ss of lau. a Othe I Authoritg of it was held 3

13. InK.D.'Sharzrr.q India Limited. and thus: "34. The juisdiction of t $upreme Court under Article 32 and of he High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ls extraordinary, equitablA a discretionarg. Prerogatiue writs mentioned herein are issued It is, therefore, of for doing substantial justice. utmost necessitg that the peti ioner approaching the urit court must come wit clean hands, put fonuard all the facts'before the court utithout concealirug or suppressing a ything and seek an appropriate ielief. If th re is no candid disclosure of releuant and m terial facts or the petitioner is guilty of mislea ing the court, his at the threshold petition mag be dismissed utithout cortsidering the merit of the claim. s been succinctlg 35. The underlging object stated bg Scrutton, L.J., in t e leading case of R. u. Kensington Inconte Tox Commission-er in the follcwing u.tords: ... it hos been for manA !1ea court, and cne .,tthich it importance to maintairu, that comes to the court ta obtain re statement he should make disclosure of all the mateti facts, not Laut. He must not he can help it-the courl is the law. But it knouls nothin and the applicant rnust state s the ntle of the oJ the greatest hen an appltcant ief on an ex parte a full ancl fair I facts-it sags rssfafe the law if t oSed o know about the facts, llg an"d fairly the \\'S \\ .P No.3458U of 202a l8 facts; and the penaltg bg uhich the court enforces that obligcttion is that if it finds out that the facts haue not been fullg and fairlg stated to it, the court utill set aside anA actiott which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement." 36. A prerogatiue remedy is not a matter of course. WTtile exerctsing extraordinary pouter a writ court tuould certairuly biear in mind the conduct of the partA rt.tho inuokes the jurisdiction of tLrc couh. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dlsmiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to ente.r into the merits of the case bg stating, "We will not listen to Aour application because of u.that gou haue done-" The ntle has been euolued in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusirtg the process of court bg deceiuing it. In Kensington Income Tax 37. Commissioners. ( supra), Viscount Re ading, C. J - obserued: (KB pp. 495-96) "... Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rale nisi or other process, trf the Courl comes to the conclusion that the afftdauit in suppotl of the application tuas not candid and did not fairlg state the facts, but stated them in such a uaA as to mislead the Court as to the tnte facts, the Court ought, fo, lls ou)n protection and to preuent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed ang furtlrcr utith the examination of the merits. This ls a pou.)er inherent in the Court, but one uhich should only be used in cases uhich bring conuiction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceiued. NVSK,J W.P No.34588 ol 2024 l9 Before coming to this examination will be made are and as they haue applicant's affi.dauit, and heard that can be urged to i the Court when it reads knows the true facts. But examinatioru and heaing that the Court has been d refuse to hear angthing applicant in a proceeding u.t set in motion b a means affidauit." nclusion a careful the facts as they een stated in the euerything will be uence the uieu of the affidauit and the result of this to'leaue no doubt ceiued, then it will further from the ich has onlg been of a misleading

38. The aboue principles ha our legal system a/so. As partA uho ipuokes t jurisdiction of this Court und. High Court under Article 226 is supposed to be truthful, must disclose all mateial reseruation euen if they a cannot be allotued to play "pick and choose" the facts and to suppress (keep back (conceal) other facts. The ue jurisdiction rests in disclo compLete (correct) facts. If suppressed or distorted, the writ courts and exercise impossible. The petitioner m facts hauing a bearing utithout ang qualifi.cation T court knows law but not facts 39. If the pimary object Kensington Income Tax Com tn mind, an applicant utho d. \$ e been accepted in r settled law, the extraordinarg e r Article 32 or of a of the Constitution 'ank and open. He acts tuithout any against him. He de and seek" or to e likes to disclose or not to disclose basis of the urit ure of true and ateial facts are ery functioning of wouLd become st disclose aLl the the relief sought is because "the s highlighted in rs.(supra) is kept es not come with tE-. W.P.No.34588 ot 2024 NVS 20 candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a u.trit of the court uitl't "soiled hands". Suppression or conceaLment of mateial facts is not aru aduocacg. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuuing or misrepresentation, uthich has no place in equitable and prerogatiue jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and trulg but sta/es them in a distorted manner'and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to preuent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further uith the examination of the case on meits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court tuould be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court."

18. In thc case on hand, the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner enquired about getting a sale deed registered, respondent No.3 informed that on the instructions of respondent No.4,' respondent No.3 was requested not to entertain and register the sa-le deed in respect of the subject property on the ground that the said land is part of Waqf Gazettee notification bearing No.6,{ dated 09.02.1989 at S1.No.2746. L-. f )l NVSK,J W.P No.34588 oI2O24

19. It is Pertinent to note th t in the present case neither a refusal order was ssed nor any reason assigned 1n writing by the re pondent No.3 denying registration and infact the sa-le eed was not presented for registration before respond nt No.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who erihed the pleadings of writ afhdavit, had misrepresente the facts and tried to secure an order.

20. In this connection, it is ignificant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'bl Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya S miti Sardarshahar and another Vs. Union of India and other6 wherein at para 1l observed as under: "11. It is a settled propositi has to plead the case sufficient evidence to submissions made in the pe pleadings are not complete, t obligation to entertain of law that a party d produce/adduce substantiate his tion and in case the e court is under no pleas. In Bharat \- \ o AIR 20 lo SUPREME couRT 2221 NVS Iri' W.P.No.34588 of 2024 l 22 Singhv. State of Llaryana IAIR i988 SC 2181] this Court has observed as under : "73. ... In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of 1aw is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facLg by evidence which must appear lrom the '*.rit petition and if he is the respondent, lrom the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evrtlence in support of such facts is not annexgd to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction 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 and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and arnexed to it. " ) NVSK,J W.P.No-34588 oI2024 23

21. In my considered opinion, e aforesaid submission of the learned Assistant Gove ment Pleader is well founded. Admittedly, the petitio er did not produce aly documentary proof in support of their averment that she had executed and presented the a-le deed for registration before respondent No.3, and th sarne was refused for regrstration. The petitioner coul not even mention the date on which she had" appro Therefore, it is difficult for thi statement of the petitioner th ched the respondent. Court to accept the t the petitioner had approached the respondent au ority for registration, more so, rvhen that statement i specihcally denied by the respondent

22. At this stage, it is relevant refer the order passed by the Hontrle Supreme Court in ijay Syal V. State of PunjabT dated 22.05.2003. the elevant paragraph 1S extracted hereuncier: - 2001 Supp( l) SCR 242 \ e * rJ "In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and. solemnitg of the proceedings in law courls it is necessary that parties should not make false or knouingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts utith a design to gain some aduontage or beneftt at the hands of the court, when a coutl is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any partA attempts to pollute such a place bg adoptirtg recotlrse to make' misrepresentation and is concealing matericLl facts it d-oes so at its risk and cost. Such pqrtA must be ready to take consequences that follou on account of its ou_tn making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment bg courts in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or Lighttg taken instead. of leaming proper .,lesson. Hence there ls a compelling need to take serious uietu in such matters to ensu.re expected purity and grace in the administration oJ justice."

23. In the aforesaid case, the Honble Supreme Court heid that any false statement in the petition is abuse of law and serious view has to be taken by Court. In the present case, the petitioner in order to suit her case and to secure an order ha.s made misleading averments. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. NVSK,J W.P.No.34588 of 2024 25

24. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioner from p esentlng any executed document for registration before e registering authority, by duly following the due pro edure as contemplated under law

25. With the above observdtion , this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no orde as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha-ll stand closed. //TRUE CO YII D/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI STANT REGISTRAR S SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 One CC to SRI K SADANAND' Advoca One CC to SRI K.JAMALI' SC FOR W N D P F o U na at H v o R 5TAM P ra b d o G State of Telanga t J T

4. Two CD CoPies BSR GJP 9r e [oPUC] oF BoARD [oPuc] REGISTRATION, High Court for the & HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 I ORDER WP.No.34588 of 2024 lHE S14 /i. rtF(

9. c /-) 11 tlJE ztffi (s( t?l * O5.s;'at ctrE o \ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS I fl- Lt ?