Chimanlal Suresh Kumar Textiles P\i4. Ltd v. Registration) Department

Chimanlal Suresh Kumar Textiles pvt Ltd,, A company registered under Companies Act, Office at H.No.2.t-1-821t1, R:..JMtatkei, pitel Market, piine, " catti, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri Suresn (r;r; Ag;M;i ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the perition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders in l.A.No 1 of 2017 in w.p.No 37754 of 2o1l dated 1O.11.2017 and dismiss the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR W.P. No.37754 of 2Ol7 ORDER Questioning the action of the respondent No.3, Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, in refusing to receive the documents presented by the petitioner for registration in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.3.00 gts., under Sy.Nos.725/ 1 Part, situated ar Shamshabad village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, (hereinafter referred to as ,the subject propertyJ without assigning any reasons, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the subject properfy having purchased the same from one Sri Vinay Kumar and another vide a registered sale deed bearing Document No.2341 of 2006 dated 18.12.2OOS. It is submitted that originally one late Sri G.Sayanna was the pattedar and possessor of the subject lands including other lands and his name was recorded since the year 1954 in all concerned revenue records like Adangal/Pahani etc. The said G.Sayanna sold the subject lands in favour of the vendors of the petitioner vide registered sale r. deed bearing Documents No. 1028 and 1O29 ot t99T dated 19.1 l.1997 registered in the ofhce of the SRO, Shamshabad, Rangareddy District. Thereafter, the names of the vendors of the petitioner were mutated in the revenue records in Adangal/ Pahani and they were issued pattadar \. .\l I I \.i - 2 lwsK, J uJ ,P . No.37'154 ol 20 17 Pass Book and title deed to Lhat effect. Thereafter, the ver-rdors sold the subject property in favour of the petitioner.

3. While so, due to personal necessities, now the petitioner intends to sell the subject property in favour of some thirci parties and approached the respondent No.3 lor registration, who ir turn refused to receive the said documents without assigning any rcrason. Hence, the petilioncr filed the present u,rit petition.

4. On the earlier occasion on IO.l I .2OlT , this Court, while passing Rule Nisi, has passed the following the interim order in WPMP. No.46873 of 2077 . which reads as under: "ka-rned Government Pleader for RevenlLe takes notice for respondents. Having regard to the order dt. 12-05-2016 ,rf the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (O) ...... CC No.8917 of 2O16,3.a respondent shall receive the document presented by the petitionr:r for the purpose of registration and shall register the same subject to the final outcome of the said Special leave Petition as well as this Writ Petition and subject to complying wrth provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Ac , 1899 by the petitioner."

5. Subsequent to the said order, the respondent No.3, while denying the writ averments, has rrled counter affidavit / vacate stay petition, inter alia, stating that the petitioner has not taken any steps for mutation of the subject property in the Revenue records since the l t{vsK, J ur.P. xo,377szl o{20r7 name of the petitioner is not reflecting in Dharani to enable the authority to examine the correlation to the above referred survey numbers and nature of classification of land and it is mandatory on the part of the petitioner to produce Pattadar Pass book and Title Deed for the subject land as it is also mandatory on the part of the authority to make an entry of every transaction of sale, gift, purchase, mortgage at the appropriate place under the signature and seal of the authority. It is further submitted that the petitioner has intentionally not made the Revenue Department as party respondents to this writ petition and behind their back, wanted to get the subject property registered without obtaining necessary clearances from the competent authorities, i.e. from ULC authority, conversion permission from the concerned authority, which enables the authority to examine the documents for proper payment of stamp duty and registration fee as required under the Registration Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

6. It is further submitted that the ofhce ol the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, vide letter No.Bl23O/2012 dated O9.O3.2O|2 communicated the list of prohibited properties in Shamshabad Mandal, wherein the subject property is menticned in the prohibited properties list. The said list also indicates that the property sought to be registered by the petitioner is the subject matter of the pending litigation on the hle of this Court in W.P. No.2l73 of 2OO5 and unless fhe above litigation is decided determining the inter se rights of the 4 W.P. No.37751 ot 2017 parties, the petitioner is not entitled to execute any sare deed in favour of the third partics creating encumbrance over the sub. ect property.

7. [t is furthcr submitted that the petitioner, with a maLa fi.d-e intention, supprcssing these facts to the r-rotice of this Court, wi[hout m4king necessary parties i.e. Revenue and otller concerned departments as a parq/ respondents, and even without presenting the document sought to be registered before the registcring authority, has approached this Court. This Court. at the ao mission stage, passed the interim orders directing the respondenrs to receive the documcnt prcscnted by the petitioner for the ptrrpose of regi.stration as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp (C) C.No.B917 of 2016 dated 12.05.2016 subject to hnal outcome of the result of the said SLP as well as this writ petition. The petitioner has not even presented any document to enable the registering authority to examine for thc purpose of stamp duty and rel3istration lee. Therefore, the respondent praying [his Court to dismiss the writ petition.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the res;tondents and perused the material made available on the record. 9 The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the writ averments, would submiL that the registering authcrity without 5 gt-t, No.l'1734 0f 20t t asslgnrng any reason relused to receive and register the subject property

10. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government pleader appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the counter averments, would specifically submit that the petitioner did not approach the registering authority for registration of subject property. It is further submitted that the subject property, including orher sub division of subject Sy.No.725, has been included in the list of prohibitory properties as "Gairan' and the Court cases are pending before this Court. I 1. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the registering authority without assigning any reason is refusing to receive and register the subject property. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has categorically submitted that the petitioner did not approach the registering authority for registra[ion of subjcct properry.

12. Under those circumstances, it is not out of place to note that this Court in many occasions observed that the petitioners in their writ affidavits are stating that the registering authority is orally refusing to register the documents. It is striking to note that the parties in order to ensure that the document presented for registration shall not be rej ected/ refused for registration and without following procedure as contemplated under SecLions 32 and 34 of the , 6 W.P, No-37754 ot 2Ol7 I ..1 Registration Act, 19O8 are trying to seek orders b,, misleading the court. For better appreciation, sections 32 and 34 or-the Registration Act, 1908 is extracted hercunder for facility: "32. Persons to present doctmcnts for registration.-Except in the cases mentioned n 1 [sections 31,88 and 89], euery document to be registered under lhis Act, whether -sLrch registration be compulsory or optional, shatt be presented at the proper registration-olfice,- (a) bg some person exeat ting or claimtng under the same, or, in the, case of a copg of a decree: or order, cLaiming under the decree or order, or (b) bg the representatiue or ossign of suclt persott, or a (c) bA the agent of such a person, representahue or assign, duly authorized by pouter-of atton-, eA executed and autlenticated in manner hereinaJter mentioned.

34. Enquiry beJore registratio4 bg registering ofJicer.-(1) Subject to the prouisions containeti in this Part and in sections 41 , 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, ,98 and 89, no doanment shall be registered unaer this Ac\ unless the persons executirlg su:,h document, or their representatiues, assigns or agents authorized as aforesoid, appear before tne registeing officer uithln the time altoued Jbr presentation under section-s 23, 24, 25 and 26."

13. On a conjoinl reading of Section 32 and 34, it is clear that the act of parties i.c. "Dxecution" and "Presentation,, js mandatory. 7 w.P, No,377s4 or2(}r7 The word "Execution" means the parties have to sign without leaving any blanks and after paying requisite stamp duty supported by challan shall "Present" the executed document before the authorities for processing the registration. It is to be noted that unless the document is executed and presented before the concerned Sub- Registrar or Joint Sub-Registrar, the authorities cannot proceed further to pass any order under Section 71 o[ the Registration Act,

1908. The parties instead of executing and presenting the document as per Section 32 and 34 of the Act are approaching the Courts seeking direction to the Registering authority for registration of document that "may" be presented.

14. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the order dated

19.08.1999, passed in Deverneni Linga Rao Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapallit. The relevant paragraphs are extracted here under:- "8. The ueLl estabLished Rule, subject to certain exceptions, is that the applicant for mandamus musl show bg eutdence, thr.t he mad.e a demand. colling upon the concemed outhoitg to perform his public dutg and that u.)as met u.tith refusal either byuords or by conduct AppLging this salutary rule, the Apex Court in Sarosuati Industrial Sgndicate Ltd Dtc. , u. - Union of Indta, thus : "..... The poluers of the High Court under Article 226 arc not stnctlA confined to the limits to u-thich proceed-ings for prerogatiue writs are subject in ' rggg (6) nro rqa I gl.P. No-37754 oI2Ot? x] 8 Eng lis h practice. N euerthele s s, the tuell-recog nis ed rule that no urit or order in the nature of a manrlamus would issue u.then there i.s no faih re to perforrn a mandatory dutg applies [n this country as tuell. Euen ln cases of a eged breacht.s of mandatory duties, the salutary generaL ntle. uthich is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a urit of mondamus is a.;ked for, could be stoted as ue find tt set or,t in Halsbury's La u.ts of England (3rd edition, Vol.l 3, p. 106) 'As a general ntle the order ui not be gra nted unless the partg complained of has known tuhat tt uas he utas requlred to do, so that he had the means of considerinq uhether or not he should complg, and it must be shown bg euidence that there tuas a distinct demand of that uhich the partg seektng the mandamus desires to enfc,rce, and that that demand u.)as met bg a refusal.. From the a|orementioned facts and ciranmstances it i.s clear that the petitioners could not and dtd not sLau thot theg mode a demand to the responctent and that uos met utth refusal- Therefore, it is not possible lo issue the declaration sought for or the con-sequentiaL direction commanding the respondent herein to register the sale de,zds proposed to be executed bA the petitioners in Jaucur of therr purchasers. This uietu of mine gains _fu support Irom the decision ol a Diuision Bench of this Court in D. Ratnasundan Deui u. Commlssonet o Urban Land Ceili

9. For the aforementioned reasotl_s, the utrit petitions fail and are accordinglg dismissed, Itut tuithout costs. Houteuer, this order uill not preclud_e 9 tlusx. J q,P. 0,37754 of2oU o the petittoners from presenting the sale deeds for registration before the respondent. In such an euent, I om sure, the respondent will immediotelg discharge his statutory duties mentioned in Part XI the Act and consider registerability of the sale d.eeds. I am ctlso sure that in case the registration is refused, he uill certainlg record the reasons as enjoined by Section 7 I of the Act and fumish a copy thereof, tf lhe pet[tloners apply for the same."

15. 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 other2, the relevant paragraphs extracted hereunder:- "10. It is uell settled that the jurtsdiction exercised by the Hlgh Court under Article 226 oJ the Constltution of Indto is ertraordinary, equitable and dtscretionary and tt is imperatiue that the petitioner approaching the u.tit court must come uith clean honds and put forluard alL facts before the Court without concealtng or suppressing angthing. A litigant is bound to state all facts uthich are releuant to the titigation. If he withhotds some uital or releuant matertal in order to goin aduantage ouer the other side then he uLould be guiLty of playirLg fraud uith the court as uell as u.tith the opposite part[es uhtch cannot be countenanced.

11. This Court in Prestige Ltghts Ltd. V. St(rte Bank of India t has held that a prerogatiue remedg is not auailable as a matter of coursb. In exercising ertraordtnary pouer, a uit court utould ' (zozz) tz Supreme Court Cases 815 l0 xl.P. No 37754 0t 2017 N IYVSK. J indeed bear in mind the conduct of the partA LL tTich is inuoking such. jurisdiction. If the appLicant ,ioes r-tot disclose full facts or suppresses rele,uant mateials or is otlenuise WiltA of misleading the court, the court maA dismiss the action uit hout adjttdicating the matter. It utas held thus: "33. It ls thus clear that though the appeLlant Company had approached the High ()ourt under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidlg stated cLll the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercisin.g discretiottary and extraordi,ary juisdiction under Articlc 226 of the Con-stituLion. Ouer ond aboue, a court of lotu is also a court of equitA. It is, therefore, of utmost necessitA t hat uhen a partA approaches a High Court, lte rr,ust place all the facts before the Court u..tithouL ong resen)ation. If there is suppression of mateial fctcts on the part of the applicant or tu.tisted facts haue been placed before the Court, the uit courT nLaA refuse to entertain the petition rznd dismrs-s it tuithout enteing ulto ments of the matter."

12. In Udgami Euam Khadi Gramodgog Wefctre Sanstha and. Another u. Sta.tg of Uttar pradesh (rnil Others2, this Court hos reiterated that the uit remedg i.s an equitable one and a pers on approaching a supeior court must come with a pair of clean hands. Such person should not suppr( ss ang mateiol foct but atso should not take recourse to legal proceedings ouer and ouer again whtch amou nts to abuse of the process of lanu.

13. In K.D. Shanna a. Steel Authoritg of India Llmited and. Others 3, tt uas held thus: I(VSK. J W,P. no-37754 ol2()r7 " 34. Tlne lurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 ond of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, eqtitable and discretionary- Prerogatiue writs mentioned there[n are [ssued for doing substantiaL pstice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessitg that the petitioner approaching the uLnt court must come uLith clean hands, put foru.nrd atl the facts before the court uithout concealing or suppressing anything and seek on appropiote rehef. U there is no condid disclosure of releuant and materiol facts or the petitioner b guiltg of misleading the court, his petition mag be dismissed at the threshold tuithout considering the meits of the claim- 35. The underlg[ng object has been succinctlg stated bg Sctutton, L.J., in the Lead.ing case of R. u. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner in the follotaing tuords: ... it has been for manA Aears the rule of the cour7, and. one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that tuhen an applicant comes to th.e court to obtain relief on an ex parle statement he should make a futl and fair disclosure of alL the material facts-it says /acts. not laLU- He must not mbstate the latu if he can help it-the court is supposed to know the low. But it knotus nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fullg ond fairly the facts; and the penaltA bg which the court enforces that obligation ts that if it finds out that the facts haue not been futlg and foirlg stated to it, the court witl set aside any oction u.thich it ha-s taken on the faith of the imperfect stotement."

36. A prerogatiue remedy b not a matter of course. Whtle exerctsing extraordinary poluer a urit court t2 trvsK, J w.P, No.37754 ol2017 .\../ uould cerlainlA bear in mind the conduct oJ' the partll tDho inuokes the lurisdiction of the cou4. If the applicant makes a fatse statement or suppresses mateial fact or attempts to misleact the court, the court maA dismiss the oction on that ground olone and mag refuse to enter into the meits of the case bg stdting, "We will not tistt n to gour application because of uhat gou haue dan.e." The rule hos been euoLued in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants .liom abusing the process of courl by deceiuing tt. In Kensington Income Tax 37. Commisstoners.(supra), Viscount Reading. C.J. obsertted: (KB pp 495 96) ". . . Where an ex p'arte application has been made to this Court for a ,ule nisi or other process, tf the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidauit in support ol the application uos not condid and did not fairlg s'ate the facts, but stated them ln such a u.tog a:; to mislead the Court as to the tnle facts, the Cr.>urt ought, for its oun protection and to preuent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceecl ang further uith the examination of the meits. This rs a potuer inherent in the Court, but one uh[ch should onlg be used in cases uhich bing conuiction to the mind of the CourT that it has been deceiued. BeJbre coming to this concluston a careful examination uill be made of the facts as theg are and as theg hnue been stated in the applicant's affidauit, c'.nd euerything tuilt be heard that can be urge,d to inJluence the uieut of the Court u-then tt reads lhe affidauit and knouts the true facts. But if the of this examination and heanng is to leaue no dottbt that the Court has been deceiued, then it u.ttll refitse to hear anything funher from the applicant in a _res t :l I t t I i l3 Ur,P. n6.3775r1of2017 proceeding uhich has only been set in motion by means of a misleading offtdauit.,'

38. The aboue prtnciples haue been accepted tn our legaL sgstem also. As per settled latu, the partg utho tnuokes the extraordinory juisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court und.er Article 226 of the Constitutton is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must discLose alt mateiol facts u.tithout ang reseruation euen if tlrcA are against him. He cannot be allou.ted to ptay "hide and. seek" or to "pick and clnose" the facts he tikes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The uery basis of the u_tnt juisdiction rests in disclosure of ttue and. complete (correct) facts. If materiaL facts are suppressed. or distorted, the uery functioning of utit courts and. exercise wouLd become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts hauing a beaing on the relief sought utthout any quaLifLcation. Ihis rs because "the court knou.ts lau but not facts".

39. If the pimary object as highlighted. in Kensington Income Tox Commrs.(supra) is kept in mind, an applicant tuho does not come tuith candid faAs and "clean breast" cannot hokl a tuit of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or conce*lment of mateial facts is nol an aduocacg. It is a juggLery, manipulation, manoeuuing or mtsrepresentotion, uhich has no place tn eqtitabte and prerogatiue jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the mateial facts foirlg and trulg but states them in a distorted manner and. misleads the court, the court has tnherent power tn order to protect itsetf and to preuent an abuse of its process to discharge the ntLe nlsi and refuse to .-\-l \ i' l4 !wSK, J w_P. No_3?7s4 0f2017 proceed furtLTer uith the examinotion of the ca:;e on merits. If the court does not reject the petltion on that ground, the court uoutd be faiting in its dutg. In fact, such an applicant requires to be d_ealt u,tith for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court. "

16. In the present case the petitioner had neither fiI,:d any executed document for registration before the authority for registration nor the registering authority has passed any refusal orderr. There are contradictory statements of both of the parties and responcient authorities. The petitioner states that the registering authority 1S refusing to register the subject property and on the other hand, the registering authority states that the petitioner did not approach the authority for registration of the subject property.

17. In this connection, it is signihcalt to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan pradesh Vaidya Samiti Sardarshahar aud another Vs. Uniorr of India and other3 wherein at para 1l observed as under, "11. It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case arrd produce/adduce suffrcient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case .,he pleadings are not complete, the court is under no obligation to entertain the p1eas. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [AIR 1988 SC 2 181] r,1is Court has observed as under : t AtR 20 lo supREME couRT 2221 ) w.P, xo.377s4 or20r7 "13. ... In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substanLiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner , must plead and prove such facts bv evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts aJe not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not arnexed to the writ petition or to the counter- afhdavit, as the case may be, the Court wrll not entertain tJle point. There is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-aIIrdavit. While in a pleading i.e. a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence arc requircd to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-afhdavit , not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded arld annexed to it."

18. Having gone through the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner did not file any executed document in support of his claim that the registering authority refused to register the subject property for registration. The petitioner did not even mentioned the date on which he approached the registering authority. Therefore, the statement of the petitioner that he approached the registering authority for registration cannot be accepted more so, when that statement is specifically denied by the respondents authority. t6 qr.P_ tao.37754 0f2017

19. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the ordcr passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Syal V. State of punjaba dated 22.O5.2OO3, the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:_ "In order lo sustain and maintain sanctitu an<L solemnitg of the proceedings in laut courts it is necessary that parties should not make fal:;e or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/ or shouLd. not cortceal mater[al facts utith a design to gain s:ome aduantage or benejLt at the hands of the c,ttr1, when a court is considered as a place uhere Lruth and .justice are the solemn pursuits. If ang party attempts to pollute such a place by ad.op,ting recourse to make misrepresentatiotT artd is concealing mateial facts it does so at its nsk tnd cost. Such portA must be read.g to Lake consequences that folloul on account of lts osn making. At times lenient or liberal or genet cus treatment bA courts in dealing uith such ma ers are either mistaken or ligtttlg taken insteacl of leaming proper lesson. Hence there is a compelllng need to take seious uietu in such matters to ens'tre expected puritg and grace in tlte administration of justice. "

20. In the aforcsaid case, the Hon,ble Supreme Court held thar any false statement in the petition is abuse of law and serior_ts view has to be taken by Court. In the present case, the petitioner in order to suit their case and to secure an order has made misleading a./erments. 1

200.1 Suop( I ) SCR 242 - t7 I(VSX, J W.P. No.3775?r oa20I7

21. Now coming to the aspect of the title of the petitioner on the subject property, it is relevant to refer the Memo No.Gl/ 17480196 dated 08.05.2012 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps A.P., Hyderabad, wherein all the District Registrars were informed to instruct atl che Sub-Registrars working under their control not to accept the documents relating to transactions relerred under Sub Sec[ion (1) of Section 6 of Record of RightsAct, if Pattadar Pass Books are not produced by the both the parties as required under Section 6D(i)&(2) read with 6(l) of Record of Rights Act. They were further informed that the documents without production of Pattadar Pass Books shall not be accepted for presentation.

22. Further, in Circular Memo No.G3/ 3247 l20t8 dated O 1.O5.2019 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana, Hyderabad, wherein while referring to Section 6D of the Telangana Rights in Land and.Pattadar pass Books Act, 1971 issued the following instructions: "As per the above provisions of law, now it is mandatory on the part of the Registering authority to verify Webland data besides insisting on production of Title Deed cum Pattadar Pass Book (in case new pass books are issued otherwise separate pass book and title deed) from the parties in respect of tra;rsactions mentioned in the law and also the instruments which are listed through executive instructions from time to time. l8 w P do 37754 .{ 20t7 ( \ - Thcrefore, all the Sub-Registrars arc dirccted to invariably verify the Weblanrl or Dharani or aly electronic record made availairle to them and if the details of the scheduled prol;ert1, and parties are fully tallied then only go aread with regrstration besides making nccessar5r entries in thc Titlc Deed cum Pass Book as per Section 6D of the Act. It is further directed that in certain cases, the p:rrties wrth an intention to circumvent the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land ald Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 are showing bulk la;rds in square ya-rds and getting the documonts registcred. All the Ofhcers particularly the Registering Officers shall be vigilant to detect s -rch frauds. Whcnever huge lalds are shown in squarc yards, the Sub-Registrar shall invariz.bly refer Webland (Dharani) and hnd out the r.eal owners as per the Revenue Records and inr;ist upon <:onversion certificate of agriculture lald r:eto nor.r-agricuJtural land issued by the compet,lnt authority. [f such vigilance is not employed, r] c responsible SR is liablc for punishment.

23. Further, coming to the submissions made by tl-re responde nt No.3 in the counter that the petitioner has not taken any steps for mutation of the subject property and that his name is not reflecting in Dharani and that it is mandatory on the part of the peritioner to produce Pattadar Pass Book and tirle deeds lor the sr-rbject land, it is necessary to refcr the G.O. Ms. No.l18 Revenue (Registration) Department datecl 28. ro.2o2o issued notification to the elfect that r v r t9 NVSK. J w,P, Ito.37754 0f2017 "The Tatsildars of the Reuenue Mandals concemed are herebg appointed as Joint Sub-Registrars u.tith an office at tle head quarters of the Mandal to deal uith registration of documents relating to the lands to tuhich the Telangana Rights in land and Pattadar pass Books Act, 202O applies, and allied matters under the Regi-stration Act, 1908 and the Rules made thereunder."

24. In view of the aforesaid instructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, the submissions made by the respondent No.3 that for the purpose of identity of the parties and the classification of the land and production of Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds are mandatory is well founded. That apart, it is submilted that the sub division of subject Sy.No.725 has been included in the list of prohibitory properties as "Gairan" and the Court cases are pending before this Court and that the Revenue Department is not made as party respondent.

25. Further, in view of the disputed questions of facts with regard to the title and possession, which cannot be decided on affidavits, and also by lollowing the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shubhas Jain V.Rajeswari Shivams and Krishna Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesho, the writ petition is devoid oi mcrits and fails. 5 2o2l scc onLine sc 562 u (zoz r) e scc rr r I I 20 u/,P. No-37754 ol20l7 F

26. Accordingly, with the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order u i not preclude the petitioner from presenting the subject document for registration before the registering authority, by duly following the due procedure as contemplated under law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. oT //TRUE COPY/' I\STIPIIANT SD/. K. AMMAJI GISTRAR RE /\ I I 'isEcloN "i OFFICER one fair copy to THE HoN'BLE N.V.SHRA1/AN KLTMAR (For His Lordship,s Kind perusal) m:,,::fl,:;T:rerary, '1 . 'l 1 L.R Copies. , union of tndia, rvinistry of Law, Justice and company 3. The Secretarv. Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court 4. One CC to SRT MOHDIMO_|N AHMED eUADRt, Advocate tOpUCl 5. rwo ccs to Gp FoR REVENUE ,H,sha;;;i.ii iil 5a; iiiei#gana at 6. Two CD Copies Buildings, Hydi.'rabad Hyderabad [OUTI B I\4 GJP a+p I -!1"_ SrAr e !3(-' 0? ,ir 2025 ,/ ) t 2 a )- { HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 ORDER WP.No.37754 ot 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS c'l[r*