Telangana High Court
Chimanlal Suresh Kumar Textiles Pvt. ... vs State Of Telangana, on 25 February, 2025
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ WRIT PETITION No.37754 of 2017
% Dated 25-02-2025
Between:
# Chimanlal Suresh Kumar Textiles Private Limited
... Petitioner
and
$ The State of Telangana
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Stams & Registration) Department, ,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mohd. Moin Ahmed Quadri
^ Counsel for the respondents : Govt.Pleader for Revenue
< GIST : ---
>HEAD NOTE : ---
? Cases referred: :
1. 1999 (6) ALD 144
2. (2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 815
3. AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2221
4. 2003 Supp (1) SCR 242
5. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562
6. (2021) 6 SCC 771
NVSK, J
2 W.P. No.37754 of 2017
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
W.P. No.37754 of 2017
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 at Shamshabad village and
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject
property') 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 property having purchased the
same from one Sri Vinay Kumar and another vide a registered sale
deed bearing Document No.2341 of 2006 dated 18.12.2005.
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
deed bearing Documents No.1028 and 1029 of 1997 dated 19.11.1997
registered in the office 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
NVSK, J
Pass Book and title deed to that effect. Thereafter, the vendors 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 third parties and
approached the respondent No.3 for registration, who in turn refused
to receive the said documents without assigning any reason. Hence,
the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. On the earlier occasion on 10.11.2017, this Court, while
passing Rule Nisi, has passed the following the interim order in
WPMP. No.46873 of 2017, which reads as under:
"Learned Government Pleader for Revenue
takes notice for respondents.
Having regard to the order dt.12-05-2016 of
the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
...... CC No.8917 of 2016, 3rd respondent shall
receive the document presented by the petitioner
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 with provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 by the petitioner."
5. Subsequent to the said order, the respondent No.3, while
denying the writ averments, has filed 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
NVSK, J
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 office of the Tahsildar,
Shamshabad Mandal, vide letter No.B/230/2012 dated 09.03.2012
communicated the list of prohibited properties in Shamshabad
Mandal, wherein the subject property is mentioned 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 file of this Court in W.P. No.2173 of 2005 and unless
the above litigation is decided determining the inter se rights of the
NVSK, J
parties, the petitioner is not entitled to execute any sale deed in favour
of the third parties creating encumbrance over the subject property.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner, with a mala fide
intention, suppressing these facts to the notice of this Court, without
making necessary parties i.e. Revenue and other concerned
departments as a party respondents, and even without presenting the
document sought to be registered before the registering authority,
has approached this Court. This Court, at the admission stage,
passed the interim orders directing the respondents to receive the
document presented by the petitioner for the purpose of registration
as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) C.No.8917
of 2016 dated 12.05.2016 subject to final 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 the purpose of stamp duty and registration fee.
Therefore, the respondent praying this Court to dismiss the writ
petition.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and
perused the material made available on the record.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the writ
averments, would submit that the registering authority without
NVSK, J
assigning any reason refused 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 other 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.
11. 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 registration of
subject property.
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 rejected/refused for registration and without following
procedure as contemplated under Sections 32 and 34 of the
NVSK, J
Registration Act, 1908 are trying to seek orders by misleading the
Court. For better appreciation, Sections 32 and 34 of the Registration
Act, 1908 is extracted hereunder for facility:
"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."
13. On a conjoint reading of Section 32 and 34, it is clear that the
act of parties i.e. "Execution" and "Presentation" is mandatory.
NVSK, J
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 of 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,
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
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
1999 (6) ALD 144
NVSK, J
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
NVSK, J
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."
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 other 2, the relevant paragraphs are
extracted hereunder:-
"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
(2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 815
NVSK, J
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:
NVSK, J
"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
NVSK, J
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
NVSK, J
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
NVSK, J
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."
16. In the present case the petitioner had neither filed any executed
document for registration before the authority for registration nor the
registering authority has passed any refusal order. There are
contradictory statements of both of the parties and respondent
authorities. The petitioner states that the registering authority is
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 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 :
AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2221
NVSK, J
"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."
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.
NVSK, J
19. 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 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."
20. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 petitioner in order to suit
their case and to secure an order has made misleading averments.
2003 Supp(1) SCR 242
NVSK, J
21. Now coming to the aspect of the title of the petitioner on the
subject property, it is relevant to refer the Memo No.G1/17480/96
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 all the Sub-Registrars working
under their control not to accept the documents relating to
transactions referred under Sub Section (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(1)&(2) read with 6(1) 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.G3/3247/2018 dated 01.05.2019
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 transactions mentioned in the law
and also the instruments which are listed through
executive instructions from time to time.
NVSK, J
Therefore, all the Sub-Registrars are
directed to invariably verify the Webland or
Dharani or any electronic record made available to
them and if the details of the scheduled property
and parties are fully tallied then only go ahead
with registration besides making necessary entries
in the Title Deed cum Pass Book as per Section 6D
of the Act.
....
It is further directed that in certain cases,
the parties with an intention to circumvent the
provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and
Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 are showing bulk
lands in square yards and getting the documents
registered. All the Officers particularly the
Registering Officers shall be vigilant to detect such
frauds. Whenever huge lands are shown in
square yards, the Sub-Registrar shall invariably
refer Webland (Dharani) and find out the real
owners as per the Revenue Records and insist
upon conversion certificate of agriculture land into
non-agricultural land issued by the competent
authority. If such vigilance is not employed, the
responsible SR is liable for punishment.
...."
23. Further, coming to the submissions made by the respondent
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 petitioner to
produce Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds for the subject land, it is
necessary to refer the G.O. Ms. No.118 Revenue (Registration)
Department dated 28.10.2020 issued notification to the effect that
NVSK, J
"The Tahsildars of the Revenue Mandals concerned are hereby
appointed as Joint Sub-Registrars with an office at the head quarters of
the Mandal to deal with registration of documents relating to the lands
to which the Telangana Rights in land and Pattadar pass Books Act,
2020 applies, and allied matters under the Registration 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 submitted 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 following the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Shubhas Jain V.Rajeswari Shivam 5 and Krishna
Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 6, the writ petition is
devoid of merits and fails.
2021 SCC OnLine SC 562
(2021) 6 SCC 771
NVSK, J
26. Accordingly, with the above observations, this writ petition is
dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order will 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.
________________________________
JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 25.02.2025
Note: L.R. copy be marked.
B/o.
LSK
