Telangana High Court

M/S.Sri Ven Infra Projects vs The State Of Telangana on 7 February, 2025

     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 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.11/33, 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 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th Respondent to receive, register and release lease deed and the mortgage deed in respect of land admeasuring 0-17.69 guntas or equivalent 2140 Sq.yards along with temporary structures in Sy No.11/33, situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District."

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 guntas

or equivalent 2140 Sq.yards along with temporary structures in Sy

No.11/33, situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, having acquired the same through registered

sale deed bearing Doc.No.8661 of 2016 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 2021 and this Court vide interim order dated

11.11.2021, directed the respondent authorities therein to register and

release the pending Doc.No.P/1250/2021 and made clear that such

registration would be subject to the outcome of the final orders to be

passed in W.P.No.28348 of 2021.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of

lease dated 01.09.2021 is expired and the petitioner had executed

release lease deed. It is further submitted that petitioner by mortgaging

the subject property intended to obtain loan from the financial

institution and executed a mortgage deed in respect of the subject

property and approached the respondent No.4 and requested to

respondent No.4 orally refused to register the subject documents.

Aggrieved by the same present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further 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 registering authority to register and release the subject

documents presented in respect of the subject property.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and

Registration placed on record instructions issued by Deputy Collector

and Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, relevant portion is extracted

here under:-

"In this regard, it is submitted that, as per old revenue records, the lands in Sy No.11 total admeasuring Ac. 359-09 gts of Khanamet village is classified as "Patta" in the name of Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust. Later the land in Sy No. 11 together with others lands in Khanamet village holding by the "Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust" have been declared as Urban Land ceiling Surplus lands vide CC No. H1/4933/76. Hence the subject lands have been notified in list of prohibitory property U/s.22-A of Registration Act, 1908 as the interest of the Government is involved.

The contention of the Writ Petitioner herein is that to process the registration document in respect of temporary structure in SyNo. 11/33 of Khanamet village, whereas, the above property which is being sought for registration is also part and parcel of ULC land declared vide CC No. H1/4933/76 against declarant "Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust".

Hence this instant WP is filed with malafide intention to grab the valuable Government land in Sy No. 11 of Khanamet village and hence the same is liable to be dismissed in the interest of Justice."

6. Learned 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 1 [sections 31, 88 and 89], every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration-office,--

(a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or

(b) by the representative or assign of such a person, or

(c) by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly authorized by power-of attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned.

34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.--(1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections

41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26."

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted 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

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. He 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 and 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 Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner neither

approached the respondent No.4 nor presented any documents for

registration. 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 Registrations appearing for

respondents and perused the material available on record.

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

24.12.2024, passed by this Court in W.P.No.36081 of 2024. The relevant

paragraphs are extracted here under:-

"10. It is not out of the place to observe that this Court on many occasions observed that the petitioners in their writ affidavits are stating that the Sub-Registrars are 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 rejected/refused for registration are filing writ petitions without following procedure contemplated under Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908, and are trying to seek orders by misleading the Court. Many of such instances have come to the notice of this Court.

11. Under those circumstance, it is relevant to refer the order dated 19.08.1999, passed in Deverneni Linga Rao Vs. Sub- Registrar, Peddapalli 1. The relevant paragraphs are extracted here under:-

"8. The well established Rule, subject to certain exceptions, is that the applicant for mandamus must show by evidence, that he made a demand calling upon the concerned authority to perform his

1999 (6) ALD 144

public duty and that was met with refusal either bywords or by conduct Applying this salutary rule, the Apex Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd Etc., v.- Union of India, thus :

"..... The powers of the High Court under Article 226 arc not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well- recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd edition, Vol.13, P. 106): 'As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal".

From the aforementioned facts and circumstances it is clear that the petitioners could not and did not show that they made a demand to the respondent and that was met with refusal. Therefore, it is not possible to issue the declaration sought for or the consequential direction commanding the respondent herein to register the sale deeds proposed to be executed by the petitioners in favour of their purchasers. This view of mine gains full support from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in D. Ratnasundari Devi v. Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling, .

9. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed, but without costs. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from presenting the sale deeds for registration before the respondent. In such an event, I am sure, the respondent will immediately discharge his statutory duties mentioned in Part XI of the Act and consider registerability of the sale deeds. I am also sure that in case the registration is refused, he will certainly record the reasons as enjoined by Section 71 of the Act and furnish a copy thereof, if the petitioners apply for the same."

12. 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 other 2, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-

(2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 815

"10.It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced.

11. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India 1 has held that a prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, a writ court would indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party which is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. It was held thus:

"33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter."

12. In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others2, this Court has reiterated that the writ remedy is an equitable one and a person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. Such person should not suppress any material fact but also should not take recourse to legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law.

13. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others 3, it was held thus:

"34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of

relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.

35. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner in the following words:

... it has been for many years the rule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts--it says facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it--the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement."

36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, "We will not listen to your application because of what you have done." The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it.

37. In Kensington Income Tax Commissioners.(supra), Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-96) "... Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit."

38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because "the court knows law but not facts".

39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs.(supra) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would 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."

13. In the case on hand, the petitioners at paragraph No.3 of the writ affidavit stated the following:-

".....I further submit that I intended to alienate the above said property to the petitioner No.2 and 3, who are prospective purchasers and prepared the Sale Deed to present the same before the Respondent No.3 along with necessary link documents to transfer the same in favour of Petitioner No.2 and 3, but to my surprise, the Respondent No.3 herein refused to receive the documents to registration, for which the acts of Respondent No.3, I and the Petitioner No.2 and 3 are suffering from great hardship and mental agony,......"

14. It is Pertinent to note that in the present case neither a refusal order was passed nor any reason was assigned in writing by the respondent No.3 denying registration and infact the draft sale deed filed in the material papers is unsigned. The learned counsel for the petitioners, who verified the pleadings of writ affidavit, had misrepresented the facts and tried to secure an order.

15. In this connection, it is significant to refer 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 other 3 wherein at para 11 observed as under:

"11. It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [AIR 1988 SC 2181] this Court has observed as under :

"13. ... In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit.

If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed 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 annexed to it."

16. In my considered view, the aforesaid submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is well founded. Admittedly, the petitioners did not produce any documentary proof in support of their averment that they had executed and presented the sale deed for registration before respondent No.3, and the same was refused for registration. The petitioners could not even mention the date on which they had approached the respondent. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to accept the statement of the petitioners that they had approached the respondent authority for registration, more so, when that statement is specifically denied by the respondent.

17. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Syal V. State of Punjab 4 dated 22.05.2003, the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-

"In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at

AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2221

2003 Supp(1) SCR 242

its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice."

18. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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 petitioners in order to suit their case and to secure an order have made misleading averments. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.

19. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioners from presenting the subject document for registration before the registering authority, by duly following the due procedure as contemplated under law."

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:-

"INSTRUCTIONS TO CONCERNED PARITES :

i) The concerned parties shall make an effort to see that their presence is recorded in the watch Register/General Diary (GD Book/Entry Book/Register), if any maintained by the Sub Registrar's office to ensure that they have approached the Sub Registrar's office, so as to avoid the repeated instructions from the authorities that the parties/petitioners have not approached the Sub Registrar's office or not presented any proposed documents for registration and they have not orally refused for registration.

ii) Before approaching the Registrar's office, parties must ensure that the proposed property is not in the prohibited list, if it is found in the prohibited list, they shall take appropriate steps to delete the subject property from the prohibited list, in accordance with law, but not to approach the Court on the ground that the Sub Registrar is orally refusing to receive and register the subject property.

iii) Presentation of the proposed documents should be in compliance with 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 aforesaid guidelines shall scrupulously be followed by the Registering Authorities."

13. In the case on hand, the subject documents sought for registration

are not executed in terms of Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act,

1908 and in absence of same, relief sought for registration of such

documents cannot be considered.

14. 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.

_________________________________ JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 07.02.2025 Note:-