Telangana High Court
Smt R. Savya vs The Sate Of Telangana on 9 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.34588 of 2024
ORDER:
The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the
Respondent registration authorities in not entertaining
and registering the sale deed which may be presented by
the petitioner in respect of the flat bearing of Plot No.22
Eastern Part in survey Nos.47Part and 48 admeasuring
100 Sq Yards or 83.6 Sq Mtrs Situated at Boduppal
Village under Boduppal Municipal Corporation, Medipally
Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, SRO Uppal on the
ground that the said property is part of the waqf gazette
notification dated 09.02.1989 at Sl.No.2746 filed the
present Writ Petition.
2. Heard Sri K. Sadanand, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the record.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
2
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.47Part and 48 admeasuring
100 Sq Yards or 83.6 Sq Mtrs Situated at Boduppal
Village under Boduppal Municipal Corporation, Medipally
Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, SRO Uppal (herein
after referred as ‘subject property’) from its vendor who
earlier purchased the subject property by a sale deed
bearing No.11760 of 2017 registered at S.R.O., Uppal,
Medchal-Malkajgiri 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 notification
bearing No.6A dated 09.02.1989 at Sl.No.2746. It is
further submitted that on verification of copy of the said
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
3
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 notification was set aside by
this Court in batch of Writ Petitions in a W.P.Nos.12275
of 1993, 25392 of 1996 and 681 of 1997 in B. Gowra
Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1 confirmed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted
that when once the said notification itself is set aside,
respondent No.4 is required to register any sale deed in
respect of the subject land.
5. Referring to the orders passed by this Court in
W.P.No.21896 of 2023 dated 11.12.2023 and
W.P.No.16142 of 2023 dated 12.07.2023, it is further
submitted that the action of the registration authorities
in not entertaining and registering the sale deed which
may be presented by the petitioner in respect of the
subject property is patently illegal and impermissible.
1
2002 (3) ALT 439
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
4
Questioning the same, petitioner filed the present Writ
Petition.
6. Respondent No.3 filed counter and submitted that
the Petitioner has not presented any document for
registration and further submits that petitioner orally
enquired in the office and had not given chance to the
Respondent No.3 either to receive, process, register or
refuse the document on the grounds mentioned in Rule
161 r/w. Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 by
presenting the duly executed Sale deed with challan
evidencing remittance of the duties.
7. It is further submitted that the Telangana State
Wakf Board has issued a letter in
F.No.PROT/MDCL/2010 dated 09-02-2022 informing
that the property in Sy.No.47 Part and 48 situated in
Boduppal village is notified as Wakf property, among
other survey numbers and the subject property is listed
in the Gazette No.6-A dated 09-02-1989 and included in
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
5
the prohibitory list under the provisions of Section 22-
A(1)(C) of the Registration Act. Thereafter respondent
No.3 requested the State Wakf Board, vide letter dated
23.08.2024 to take necessary action in view of the orders
of the High Court in W.A.Nos.745 and 868 of 2002, 778
and 885 of 2002 and 729 and 878 of 2002 dated
21.03.2011 dismissing the Writ Appeals filed by the State
Wakf Board. The said appeals were challenged in this
Court earlier and the Telangana State Wakf Board has
been requested to provide the updated modification
details, if any, to the Commissioner and Inspector-
General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana.
8. It is further submitted that the Telangana State
Government issued Registration Rules under
G.O.Ms.No.121 (Revenue-Registration-I) Department,
dated 01.06.2016. Rule 239-B stipulates as follows:
“239-B:The Wakf Board shall maintain a Register
of Auqaf containing the particulars of all Wakf
properties and all title deeds and documents
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 20246
relating thereto. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of
the Wakf Act, 1995, provides that the Board shall
forward the details of properties entered in the
Register of Auqaf to the concerned land record
office having jurisdiction over the Wakf property.
The concerned land record office, in turn, under
Sub-section (3), shall either make necessary
entries in the land record or communicate its
objections to the Board within six months from
the date of registration of the Wakf property
under Section 36. After completing this process,
the Chief Executive Officer of the Telangana State
Wakf Board shall update all records with the
concerned Revenue officials and furnish lists of
immovable properties falling under Clause (c) of
Sub-section (1) of Section 22-A, including any
subsequent additions, deletions, or modifications,
to the District Registrar and the Inspector-General
of Registration under proper acknowledgment in
Forms V and VI of Appendix XI. These lists shall
be signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the
Telangana State Wakf Board.”
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
7
9. It is further submitted that the said Rule empowers
the State Wakf Board to furnish lists of immovable
properties falling under Section 22-A(1) (C) of the
Registration Act, including subsequent additions,
deletions, or modifications, to the Registration
Department. Hence, Respondents Nos.1, 2, and 3
remain passive observers in this matter until the State
Wakf Board initiates the deletion of the property’s Survey
numbers based on the High Court’s adjudication in
various petitions, as stated by the Petitioner and the
State Wakf Board, vide Letter dated 23.08.2024 was
requested to take necessary action in view of the orders
of the High Court in the aforesaid Writ Appeals, which
were dismissed.
10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn
attention of this Court to Sections 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
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 20248
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.”
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 shall present the
document before the registering authority by paying
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
9
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, 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
present case, the petitioner has not enclosed the copy of
challan, and no application was filed as a proof that the
petitioner had approached the respondent No.3.
12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also
placed on record, the circular instructions issued by the
Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and
Stamps, Telangana, Hyderabad vide Circular Memo
No.G3/9122/2024, dated 12.08.2024, which reads as
under:-
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 202410
“Attention of the Sub-Registrars and Officers in the
address entry is invited to the reference cited,
wherein Hon’ble High Court, while disposing the W.P
No.16836/2024 and batch cases, dated: 09-07-2024
issued common orders with certain guidelines to the
Registration Authorities and instructions to concerned
parties.
In compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble
High Court, the following instructions are issued.
i) Whenever parties/citizen approach to register the
documents, the concerned Sub-Registrar, shall as
expeditiously as possible preferably within one week,
either register the document or pass refusal order, in
terms of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 and communicate the same to the
concerned parties. In no case, the Sub-Registrars
shall not refuse the documents orally for registration,
and it must be followed by a written refusal orders.
ii) In case documents are refused for registration, the
Sub-Registrars shall inform the procedure for refund
of Stamp Duty and registration charges to the
concerned parties/Citizens clearly. The refund shall
be strictly as per Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and
Registration Act, 1908.
iii) Sub-Registrars shall maintain a watch Register/
General Diary (GD Book/ Entry Book/ Register) at
every Sub-Registrar Office and to make entries of the
parties approaching the office on a particular date
and time for the purpose for which they approached
the office, so as to avoid interference, tampering and
misrepresentation.
In view of the above Sub-Registrars are hereby
directed to maintain a Register in the following
proforma.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
11
Sl.No. Date Time Name of Full Contact Purpose Signature Remarks
the Postal No. of visit of the
Party address and party
property
details
All the Sub- Registrars shall invariably maintain
the register in the above proforma in their office and
shall be kept open to the visiting public to the office to
record their purpose for the future reference.
The District Registrars shall ensure that the above
Registers are opened and maintained in the each
Sub-Registrar Office on regular basis.
iv) The registering authorities shall follow the
guidelines issued in the cases of Vinjamuri Rajagopla
Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and M/s. Invecta
Technologies Private Limited Vs. Government of
Andhra Pradesh.
These instructions shall be followed
scrupulously. If any deviation is found, suitable
disciplinary action will be initiated. These
instructions will not supersede the citizen charter
prescribed for various services rendered by the
department.”
13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that
in the circular dated 12.08.2024, the sub-registrars were
directed to register/refuse the documents presented
before them, duly following the guidelines issued in the
cases of Vinjamuri Rajagopla Chary Vs. State of
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
12
Andhra Pradesh 2 and M/s. Invecta Technologies
Private Limited Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 3
and pass order, as expeditiously 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 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 sale
deed.
15. 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
2
2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) : 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407
3
2024 (1)ALT 272
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
13
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 are trying to seek
orders by misleading the Court. Many of such instances
have come to the notice of this Court.
16. Under those circumstance, it is relevant to refer the
order dated 19.08.1999, passed in Deverneni Linga Rao
Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli4. 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 :
4
1999 (6) ALD 144
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 202414
“….. 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, .
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 202415
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.”
17. 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 5, 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 of5
(2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 815
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 202416
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
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
17
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
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 202418
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.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
19
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
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
20
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.”
18. In the 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 sale deed in
respect of the subject property on the ground that the
said land is part of Waqf Gazettee notification bearing
No.6A dated 09.02.1989 at Sl.No.2746.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
21
19. It is Pertinent to note that in the present case
neither a refusal order was passed nor any reason
assigned in writing by the respondent No.3 denying
registration and infact the sale deed was not presented
for registration before respondent No.3. The learned
counsel for the petitioner, who verified the pleadings of
writ affidavit, had misrepresented the facts and tried to
secure an order.
20. 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 other6 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 Bharat6
AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2221
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 202422
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.”
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
23
21. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid submission
of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is well
founded. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce any
documentary proof in support of their averment that she
had executed and presented the sale deed for registration
before respondent No.3, and the same was refused for
registration. The petitioner could not even mention the
date on which she had approached the respondent.
Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to accept the
statement of the petitioner that the petitioner had
approached the respondent authority for registration,
more so, when that statement is specifically denied by
the respondent.
22. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the order passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Syal V. State of
Punjab7 dated 22.05.2003, the relevant paragraph is
extracted hereunder:-
7
2003 Supp(1) SCR 242
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 202424
“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.”
23. 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 her case and
to secure an order has 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 presenting any executed
document for registration before the registering authority,
by duly following the due procedure as contemplated
under law.
25. With the above observations, this writ petition is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
June 09, 2025
PN
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34588 of 2024
26
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.34588 of 2024
June 09, 2025
PN