ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “to declare that the action of the respondent registration authorities in not entertaining and registering the sale deed which may he presented by the petitioner in respect of the flat bearing of Flat No.B-103, in First Floor bearing Municipal No 9-12/13/103, (PTI No.1197018379) name of the Project Daffodils Block No.B of Aakruthi Townshiop with built up area of 2300 Sft including common area and car parking area 100Sft along with proportionate undivided share of land admeasuring 81 Sq.Yds or 67.71 Sq Mtrs Out of total admeasuring 23304 Sq.Yds or 19482 Sq Mtrs constructed in Survey Nos.149 and 150 Situated at Boduppal Village under Boduppal Municipal Corporation Medipally Mandal MedchalMalkajgiri District S R O Uppal on the ground that the said property is part of the waqf gazette notification dated 09.02.1989 at Sl No.2746 is arbitrary and illegal since the said gazette notification was set aside by this court in 2002 3 ALT 439 B Gowra Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in 1 A No 1 of 2024 in W P No 19600 of 2024 dated 31 07 2024 and in W P No 27974 of 2024 dated 14 10 2024 and consequently direct the respondent registration authorities to entertain and register the above subject property” 2. Facts rising to file this writ petition are that the petitioner is intending to purchase the Flat No.B-103, in First Floor bearing Municipal No 9-12/13/103, (PTI No.1197018379) from respondent Nos.5 and 6, who claims to be owner of the subject property. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have purchased the subject land from Sri K.Pratap Reddy vide document No.5241/2012, dated 14.05.2012, registered at SRO Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. Accordingly, petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 prepared a sale deed and presented the same before respondent No.3 for registration. However, respondent No.3 orally refused to register the same. Aggrieved by the same the 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. 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. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration placed instructions of respondent No.3, which reads as under: “I submit that the petitioner has claimed that the 3 rd Respondent, the Sub-Registrar, unjustly denied the registration of a property that his vendor lawfully acquired. While the petitioner asserts that he inquired about the status of the land, it is, in fact, evident that he never approached the 3 rd respondent directly. Had he done so, the 3 rd respondent would have advised him to present the sale deed by his vendor, along with the relevant stamp duty challan. 5. 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. 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.” 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 execution and presentation of document sough for registration. However, in the preset case the petitioner had not enclosed the copy of challan, and no application was filed as a proof that the petitioner had approached the respondent No.3. 6. 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:- “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. 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. Sl.No. Date Time Name of the party Contact No Purpose of visit and property details Signature of the party Remarks 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.” 7. 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 Andhra Pradesh, 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) : 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407 and M/s. Invecta Technologies Private Limited Vs. 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 Andhra Pradesh, 2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) : 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407 and M/s. Invecta Technologies Private Limited Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, [ 2024 (1)ALT 272 ] and pass order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within one week from the date of receipt of the documents. 8. 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 gift deed. 9. Heard and perused the material available on record. 10. It is not out of the place to observe that this Court on many occasions observed that the petitioner 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, 1999 (6) ALD 144 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 English practice. 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. 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 , [(2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 815] 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 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. 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 Others 2, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 and undated. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who verified the pleadings of writ affidavit, had misrepresented the facts and tried to secure an order. 14. 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, AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2221 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.” 15. 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.” 15. In my considered view, 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 they had executed and presented the sale deed for registration before respondent No.3, and the same was refused for registration. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to accept the statement of the petitioner that they had approached the respondent authority for registration, more so, when that statement is specifically denied by the respondent. 16. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to an earlier order passed by this Court, in similar circumstances, in W.P.No.36081 of 2024 dated 24.12.2024 wherein this Court dismissed the writ petition which was filed with misleading averments. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner therein to approach the registering authority for registration of subject document in accordance with the provisions of Registration Act, 1908. 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, 2003 Supp(1) SCR 242 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. 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 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. 19. 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. 20. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No costs.