Telangana High Court
Smt, Samanthapudi Supraja Alias Pakala … vs The State Of Telangana on 24 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.1995 of 2025
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
“to declare the action of the respondents more particularly
Respondent No.4, herein not registering the Sale Deed Document
presented by the petitioner for the property ie., ½ undivided
Residential House bearing No.44-387/2A/1 consisting of Ground
and First Floors, on Plot No 43/A, admeasuring 150.0 Sq Yards or
125.4 Sq.Mtrs with a builtup Area of 700.0 Sq.Feet RCC, in
Survey No.399/P and 400/P, Situated at Tirumal Nagar, Moula
Ali, With in limits of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
and Mandel, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Telangana State, as
illegal, arbitrary, unjust, consequently direct the respondent No.4
to receive, register and release the sale deed document that may be
presented by the petitioner in respect of the above said property .”
2. Brief facts of this writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be
the owner and possessor of ½ undivided Residential House bearing
No.44-387/2A/1 consisting of Ground and First Floors, on Plot
No.43/A, admeasuring 150.0 Sq Yards or 125.4 Sq.Mtrs with a built up
Area of 700.0 Sq.Feet RCC, in Survey No.399/P and 400/P, Situated at
Tirumal Nagar, Moula Ali, With in limits of Greater Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation and Mandel, Medchal Malkajgiri District,
Telangana State, by virtue of registered Release Deed bearing document
No.144 of 2016. The petitioner with an intention to sell the subject
property executed the sale deed and approached the respondent No.4
for registration of the subject document. However, the respondent No.4
orally refused to register the same on the ground that the entire
2
Sy.No.399/P and 400/P are included in the prohibited properties list.
Aggrieved by the same present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent
authorities are duty bound to receive, register and release the subject
document 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 document.
4. Heard and perused the material available on record.
5. 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.
And the parties in order to ensure that the document presented for
registration shall not be rejected/refused for registration are resorting to
these tactics and are filing writ petitions by misleading the Court. Many
of such instances have come to the notice of this Court and this Court in
one of such writ petitions i.e., in W.P.No.27289 of 2015 vide order dated
26.11.2024 had dismissed the writ petition, relevant portion is extracted
hereunder:-
“6. 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:-
1
1999 (6) ALD 144
3“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 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.”
7. 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 and2
(2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 815
4discretionary 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
5not 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
6
“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.”
8. In the case on hand, the petitioners at paragraph No.8 of the writ
affidavit stated the following:-
“…..after preparation of sale deeds, for the sake of registration we have
all went to the Sub Registrar’s Office, Narapalli on 17.7.2015 for
getting registration of the Sale Deeds but the 2nd Respondent Sub
Registrar did not agree to register the document, and insisted for No
Objection Certificate (N.O.C) from revenue authorities, though we
have filed all necessary information required for registration and
offered to pay necessary Stamp duty and the Registration fees there
on.”
9. It is striking to note that in the present case neither a refusal order
has been passed nor any reason was assigned in writing by the
respondent No.2 denying registration and the learned counsel for the
petitioners, who verified the pleadings of writ affidavit, had
misrepresented the facts and tried to secure an order.
10. 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,3
AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2221
7the 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.”
11. Admittedly, the petitioners did not produce any documentary
proof in support of their averment that they approached respondent
No.2, and respondent No.2 refused to register the subject document.
12. 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.”
13. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has held that any false
statement in the petition is abuse of law and serious view is 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.
14. 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.
4
2003 Supp(1) SCR 242
8
15. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No
costs.”
6. It is striking to note that in the present case neither a refusal order
has been passed nor any reason was assigned in writing by the
respondent No.4 denying registration and the learned counsel for the
petitioner, who verified the pleadings of writ affidavit, had
misrepresented the facts and tried to secure an order. Even, the
petitioner did not produce any documentary proof in support of their
averment that they approached respondent No.4, and respondent No.4
refused to register the subject document.
7. In the present case, the petitioner 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.
8. 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.
9
9. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No
costs.
_________________________________
JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 24.01.2025
SU
