High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.3 in locking to petitioners house Quarter No.8, Phase-1, MIG-1, admeasuring 226 0 Square Yards, situated at Laxmiguda Housing Board Colony, Kattedan, Rajendernagar lVlandal, Ranga Reddy District, boundaries . North . Neighbours House, South . Neighbours House, East. Road and West. Open Place without issuing any Notice or without following any due procedure of law as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articies 14,16,19,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia, Consequently direct the respondent No.3 to open Lock to petitioners House Quarter No.8, Phase-1, MIG-1, admeasuring 226-0 Square Yards, situated at Laxmiguda Housing Board Colony; Kattedan, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, boundaries. North . Neighbours House, South . Neighbours House E:ast . Road and West . Open Place immedia:ely and not to disturb petitioners possession and enjoyment over the said houst,r in future and petitioner is readl' :o pay the penalty charges whatever prescribed by the Government i.e. respondent No. 1 to 4 for regularization of the said house' lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Siection 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in strpport of the petition, the High court may be p eased to direct the respondent No.3 to open Lock of Petitioner's House Quarter No 8, Phase-|, MIG-'1 , admeasuring 2126.0 Square Yards, situated a't Laxmiguda {ousing Board Colony, Kattedan, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, boundaries North . Neighbour'r; []ouse, South . Neighbour's House, East. Rcad and West. Oi5en Place immediately and not to disturb Petitioneis possession and enioyment over the said house n future and Petitioners is ready to pay the p'enalty charges whatever prescribecl by the Government i.e. respondent No 1 to 4 for regularization of the said house pending disposal of the main writ pertition. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Siection 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in strpport of the petition, the High Court may be preased to direct the respondents herein not to dispossess the petitioner fronr his house i.e. Qr.No.8, MIG-l Housing Board Colony, Laxmiguda, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, till the disposal of the above main Writ Petitic,n No. 14856 of 2022 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between: Guthi Ramu, Sio. Guthi Shankaraiah, Aged about 42yeas, Oc;c. Labour, R/o. Qr.No. B, lVllG-1, Housing Board Colony, Laxmiguda, Ralendri;rnagar Mandal, Ranga Redd'v D'strict' T S 5o0 o77 ...pETrroNER/ WRIT PETITIONER AND

1. The State of 'lelangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, {leoretariat Buildings, BRKR Bhavan, Tankbund Fload, Hyderabad. l! '*:,:l3li,illf, l?l33TL["J,3lJ':"'+:?'[SlPf [[!'3'!:ii,!?q'lll]1"". 3. The tvlanasins Director, t;1#g;T'ti#int-Corporation Ltd ' Gruhakalpa ; ?ilf|"* [:[HXjlh:Ji""j331ff,"0,,, Ranga Reddv District ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS No'1 TO 4

5. The State of Telangana, Rep by, its,Principal Secretary' Roads & Buildings . ffS ?lT;:'r :,?:t"fiifi:..1X3 T?{3o"' r",, Roads & Buildrngs u"p'h'Jni''E"amanzit' i<nairtabad' Hyderabad " e.1-1 : 1.'p, bv its c h i er,E n s i n ee r' ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS No'1 TO 4 petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to implead the proposed Respondents No' 5 and 6 herein as Respondents No 5 and 6 in the above W P No'14856 of 2022 and its lnterlocutory Applications' i)- Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATAI4gIgyANNEPALLI ;;;;;;i io, iii" n""pondeni Nos'1 & 4: GP FoR- REVENUE il;;;i i"i it n".'p"ndent No'2: GP FoR HoUSING counsel for the Respona"'i i'it'il iir c'eucHr REDDY' sc FoR TGHcL The Court made the following: ORDER " I THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T. VTNOD KUMAR WIUT PETITION No.1 4856 of2022 ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenre appearing on behalf of respondent Nos l & 4' leamed Goventment Pleader for Housing appearing on beh:rlf of respondent No.12 and Sri C.Buchi Reddy, learned Standing Cc'unsel appearing on b::half of respondent No'3, and perused the recold'

2. Shorn ol rnnecessary details, the case of the petitiorrer in brief is that rc ;nondent No.3 without issuing any notic' r and without lbllou ing, due process of law, illegally and in an art'itrary manner ha<l locked the premises bearing Quarter No'S, Pl ase-I, MIG-l adrnea'.ur ng 226 sq. yards situated at Laxmiguda Housing Board Colonl', Iiattedan, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga {{eddy District n'herr:irt the petitioner was permitted to reside t'y the officials of lespondent No.3.

3. Petitioner furlher contends that he had purchased the subject propedy fron-L one K.Babu, S/o.K.Pentaiah under a nol-arized agreement o[ sale dated 22-12-2003 by paying a srtm of Rs.8,90,000/-; rrnd that thereafter obtained permission ficm the 2 Govemment authorities and raised compound wall in the year 2005 itself.

4. It is the further contention of petitioner that after purchasing the aforesaid house, he was put in possession of the same, which was originally allotted by 3d respondent to M.Venkateshwara Rao, who in tum executed a notarized agreement of sale in favour of K.Babu on 22-12-2005, who in tum sold the same to the petitioner under a notarized, agreement of sale dated 22_12_2003.

5. Petitioner further contends that on being put in possession of the aforesaid property, he had renovated the same and residing therein, and all of a sudden, after 17 years, the otticials of respondent No.3 are visiting his house and disturbing his possesslon.

6. Petitioner further contends that the respondent authorities have forcibly locked the house in his occupation on 14_02_2022 without issuing any notice, without following due process of law, also without taking into consideration the developments made by him and also without taking any steps to regularize the said house in his favour &*t E 3

7. Counter-allidavit on behaif of respondents is filed.

8. By the r:ounter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, rt ls contended that the subject house was allotted to one M.Venateshrvarzr Rao, S/o.M.Nuka Rao under hire purchase agreement dated 08-04-2003 subject to terms conditions contained therein.

9. By the cor.urter-affidavit, it is further stated that the said 'allottee was reqLrir,:d to pay 40Yo of the tentative cost o1-the hruse in two installrnt:nts within six months from the date of receipt of said allotment ;.elt:r and the balance 60Yo in 40 equal quar:erly installments as fi xed by the Board. It is also contended thai the original allottee u,as required to enter into an Agreement u,itt. the Board within one nronth from the date of notice of the Board to the effect that the hous,: is completed and ready for occupation.

10. By the c,ot,rrter-affidavit, it is further stated that the said allottee had not paid any amount neither towards tentative cost nor final cost except payment of EMD of Rs.5000/- along witt his application dater:l [8-05-2022 and also did not enter into agreement with the Board l'or him to claim to be the hire purchase agreentent 1 4 holder ofthe subject properfy. Thus, by the counter_affidavit, it is contended that the subject house belongs to respondent No.3 all through. 1 I . By the counter-affidavit, it is furthsr stated that the respondent authorities have addressed a letter dated,0g_12-2021 to M.Venkateshwara Rao informing him that an amount of Rs.31,28,136/- is due in respect of house calculated upto 31-12-2021 towards the balance sale price, and in spite of respondents addressing the aforesaid communication, no amount has been paid by the original allottee nor to get the sale confirmed on hire purchase in his favour.

12. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended rhat on the Deputy Executive Engineering (Housing) of respondent No.3 causing inspection of the subject house on 14-02-2022, it was found that the said house was illegally occupied and tocked by the ,t petitioner, who lives in the next house i.e. House No.9,MIG-II which was found locked during their visit.

13. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that on the concemed authority having found the subject premises illegally \_r 5 occupied and locke,C try the petitioner, who lives in the next house and on being askr:<r, did not produce any document' As th e premises was locke,C t,y the petitioner herein, he was called upon 1o open the lock and or he opening the lock, it was found that tre having kept certain tnaterial therein, and asked him to retnove the same. However, oir 1t:titioner refusing to remove the said material, the same was t ep,,,r",.od to Dy.Executive Engineer (Housing) and copducted panchananra in the presence of petitioner and son:.e other colony allottes along with photos and video listing tlLe material, kept in rotLse. Thereafter, the Dy.Executive Engine':r (Housing) took posser;sion and custody of the subject premises ar.,d put the same under lo,:k and keY.

14. Insofar as thr: claim of M.Venkateshwar Rao having sold tlre subject property in favour of one K.Babu, and the said K'Balru having sold the santc to the petitioner under notarized agreement ,)f sale are concertred. 1le same are without authority or consent from the 3'd respondent. a.s the property continues to belong to t.re 3'd respondent.

15. By the count,rlaffidavit, it is furlher stated that since the authorities after caus;ng inspection having taken possession of the _j 6 subject house, the petitioner who is residing in the neighbouring house bearing House No.9,0yIIG_II cannot claim the authorities dispossessing the petitioner either without issuing any notice or without following due process of law inasmuch as the occupation of subject premises by the petitioner, itself is illegar and without sanction or approval from the respondent authorities.

16. Leamed Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 further submits that the respondent authorities are empowered to evict the persons who are in illegal occupation of the Board premises in a summary manner, and thus, the claim of the petitioner of respondent authorities evicting him, who is in illegal occupation, cannot be said as contrary to the Telangana Housing Board Act, 1956.

17. I have taken note ofrespective contentions urged.

18. Though, petitioner claims to have purchased the subject property under notarized agreement of sale from the agreement holder, it is settled position of law that an agreement holder cannot enter into further agreement. Further, it is also settled position of law that in respect of immovable property, title would pass only 7 I upon a sale dee,,C treing executed and no title can be clairned rrnder agreement of sr:LL: (See : Order of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.0 I 4282 of 2t)'.1,1 dated 10- I 2-2024)

19. The petir.iorrel while ciaiming the subject propefty hiLving been purchased by him, admit to the fact of subject prorefty belonging to r espondent No.3, allotted in favour of M.Venkatesl.rwar I{ao, who had not even paid any amount to the .3'd respondent- Housir-rg Board for getting the aforesaid trouse allotted to hirn ..r nder Hire Purchase agreement bv payinp, the monthly EMIs fired thereunder. Inasmuch as the said original allottee did not r:nter into any hire purchase agreement with respondent No..l. the said original allottee has no right, tit e or interest over tht: s,trbject house to enter into agreement of sale with the K.Babu, u'ho jn tum entered into notarized agreeurent o1 sale with the petitioner for him to claim the subject propeft).. Thus, the petitioner woukl have to be treated as an encroacher intc, the propefty belonging to respondent No.3.

20. Though ,rn behalf of petitioner it is contended thar the officials of respondent No.3 having permitted him to occup.,,, thg subject premisesi rrnd also permitting him to undertake renoviltion \ U -') I I 8 therein by consenting orally, it is to be noted that oral consent is not a valid consent in the eye of law, more particularly if the same is given by a person, who has no authority or sanction under law

21. Since, the respondents by their counter-affidavit have stated of the authorities after causing inspection on 14-02-2022. having taken possession of subject property after getting the lock hxed by the petitioner removed along with the material lying therein, this Court is ofthe view that the said action of the respondents does not call for any interference or cannot be said to be contrar,z to law.

22. Thus, the Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

23. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shalt stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER vocate [OPUC] 1. One CC to SRI VENKATA RAGHU MANNEPALLI' tate of Telangana, at i. i;; ccs to cP FoR REVENUE, High court for th , Hvderabad. [OUT] i,i,i,"ct'i" 6p?6n HoustNG, High court for the state of Telangana, at Hvderabad. [OUT] ili,i,"cCi,i sht-c.6ucHt REDDY, sc FoR rGHCL [oPUC] Two CD Copies eS To 4 5 PSK. BS $ HIGH COURT DATED:0510212025 ORDER WP.No.14856 of 2022 1) IdE iIA T€ e o o 1t wt yng z t D F.sD^ r,) HE9 a DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS cr(,r'4 * I