The High Court · 2025

Judgment

5. The State of Telangana,, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. The Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-Operative Societies,, Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad, T.S. The District Co-operative Officer,, Ra.nga Reddy District, T.S. Telugu Cine Workers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., (TCWCHS),, TBC- 608, rep. by its Secretary, Chiapuri Colony, Manikonda Jagir 86 Municipality, . Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District Sri. Chittaoor Krishnaiah, S/o C.Chennappa Aged about 55 years, Occ. Art Director, No B-2-2931821F1331302, Road No.8, Jubilee Hills, Shaikpet, Hyderabad - 500 096.

6. Shivakavathalam Balleshwaramma, W/o Sri S.K.Paramesh, years, Occ. Houswife' R/o H,No.3-72l33, Khajaguda Village, Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad - 500 096. Aged about 46 Serilingampally : ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of 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 or Direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the res.pondents No.4 in cancelling allotted unit No. MIG-9-404 situated at Chitrapuri Colony, Manikonda Jagir and Municipality, Gandipet Mandat, Ranga Reddy District, by the respondent No.2 863 are illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the sale deed which were executed by respondent No.4 in favour of third party vide document No. 10116 of 2022 dated 07-11-2022 in the interest of justice and equity. lA NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1to 4 not to register any sale deeds of the unit No. MIG- 9-404 situated at Chitrapuri Colony, Manikonda Jagir and Municipality, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which were already allotted to the original allottee, to cancel the present body recommendation of registration of the unit vide document 10116 of 2022 dated 07-11-2022 in favor of Respondents 5 and 6 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counselfor the Petitioner:SRl. S. A. SUBBA RAO

Counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 3: GP FOR COOPER^ATION Counsel for the Respondent No 4 : SRI M. PRATEEK REDbY SC FOR TELUGU CINE WORKERS CO.OPERATTVE HOUSING SOCIETY LMTD., Counselfor the Respondents No 5 & 6: --- The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI IIIRIT PETITION No.26194 OF 2O2S DATE : O9.L2.2O25 Between: Sri Baki Jeevan Vidya The State of Telangana & 5 others AND ORDER: Petitioner ...Respondents In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to declare the inaction of the respondent No.4 in cancelling allotted unit No.MIG- r' 9-904, situated at Chitrapuri Colony, Manikonda Jagir & I I Municipality, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict, by respondents No.2 & 3 , as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to cancel the sale deed which were executed by respondent No.4 in favour of third party vide document No. 1O LL6 I 2022, dt.O7 .L 1.2022.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Co-operation appearing for reSpondents No.1 to 3 and Sri M.Prateek Reddy, learned Standing counsel for 2 Telugu Cine Workers Co-operative Housing Society Limited appearing for respondent No.4. i

3. Perusal of the record would reveal that similar lis involved in this writ petition had already been dealt with by this Court extensively vide order dated 09.12.2025 in W.P: No.8O15 of 2025.

4. In view of thereof and for the reasons alike, this Writ Petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the authority concerned und.er Section 61 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. Miscellaneous applications, if &oy, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. iot-p. PoNNA ASSIST //TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to SRI' S' A' SUBBA RAO'

2. COOPERATION ,High Court for the State of Telangana 3. One CC to SRI M. PRATEEK REDDY SC FOR TELUGU CINE WORKERS CO- :Yfi,?3i'.t"."PtrJr"fr OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LMTD.,[oPUCl Along with a copy of the order dt' 09'1 2'2}25in W'P *o' U 5 of 2025' DAN BS \k '*l*.n.,1 ,,:]i-:],,,:,,:]i . ,.-::r:,'jjiii -:l .r1 l ':! , '.,1 ii:.:.:t - iJii ';i:l HIGH COURT DATED:09/1212025 I I ORDER WP.No.26194 of 2025 "{tlE S14 -: --. { 3 TLC ilUII '\ .l + {.1r: r " t a'i ' ...;-it 't" DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 'r"0&'fur in+ THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRTT PETTTTON NO.80l5 0F 202s ORDt.,R ln this Writ Petirion, the petitioners are seoking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 and 3 in cancelling the allotted units M-2-510 and M-8-503 situated ar Chitrapuri [{ills, Manikonda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga [iodcly Disrrict, as illcgal and arbitrary and in violation o[ principles of naturzll justice anci to cancel the sale deeds execu[ed by the 4th respondent with NOC lctter as well as DCo, Ranga Reddy in favour of respondents 5 and" 6 and to direct respondents 2 and 3 to a[[ot the said units in lavour of tlie petitioners and to pass such other order or orders-

2. After filing of this Writ Petition, vide order dt.24.07.2025, the Writ Petition in respect of the 2nd petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn and also the 6ft respondent is removed from the array of the respondents.

3. Brief facts leadingrtd the,filing the present writ Fetition are that the l$ petitioner claims to be a member of the film industry and that the Five-Men Committee formed for allotments of units in chitrapuri layout, have allotted Ftat No.M-2-510 to the t$ petitioner and he ." 1,{i}r, i i i I : i :t: : i!iili t: ! I ! I i W-P.No.8O15 of 2025 2 also made thc payrnent of Rs.19,22,500/- as per the statement of the 4th respondenr society durirrg the period from 07.08.2004 to 2g.09.2020. As pcr the allotmcnt letter, the cost of the unit is Rs.[6,00,000/- subject to escalations, changes in area as per HMDA approvals and the approval o[. the General tsody of the society and it is stated that since rhe l" petitioner has paid substantial amounts as per the allotment lctter, the balancc will be paid at the time of registration and handing over ol physical possession of the unit. [t is also stated that the I't petitioncr 6as fited o.S.No.l90 of 2024 before rhe tt Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajendranagar for perpetual injunction against respondents 5 and 6 and lras obtained interim injunction order in I.A.No.386 of the suit '2024and is still pending, but in the meantime, respondents 2 and 3 have cancellecl the allotment o[ the unit M-2-510 and have also executed sale deecls in favour of the 5ft respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the ltt' petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to allotment letter dt.3|.o7.2010, whereuqder Flat No.M-2-5.10 has been atlotted to ths tr$ petitioner and the cost of the flar is mentioned as Rs.I6,00,000[. From the details of the payrnent,also, it i,s noticed that the ltt petitio.ner has nnade substantial payments in 2010 --- -\- - -, ,}.<e f- W.P.No.8Ol5 of2025 3 201l and thereafter in 2018 and 2020. Receiprs to rhis effect have also been given by the society. The II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajerrdranagar has passed orders dt.27 .03.2024 in I.ANo.386 <>l 2024 in o.S.Nol90 of 2024 granting ad interirn injunction in favour of rhe [" petitioncr herein and against the respondents frorn alienating the subject property to any other person or persons. However, it is noticed ttrat the society is also a pafty through respondents 2 and 3 in the suit. l,earned counsel tbr the I't petitioner has also drawn the attention o['this Court to the order of this Court dt.25.0 1.2024 in w.P.No.46.s20 of z0zz and. batch, wherein the Writ Petitions fited by similarly placed persons have been decided by taking into consideration the report of the Advocate Comrnissioners and respondents 2 and,3 therein were directed to verifo flats/units allotted to the petitioners in writ Petitions No.18446, 16349, t6274 and 8415 of 2023 by the Five-Men Allotment committee and ro allow the Management Committee of the society to register lhe units dernanded by them in their names within a period of four months from the date of the order. It is stated that respondents 2 andl 3 were also ,, :. . i directed to verify the pending 160 flats/units and grant permission to the Managing Committee of the society to complete registration to cine .. workers. [t is submitted that the case of the I't petitioner herein is also .. r: i j ,i i t. j I W.P.No.80l5 o{2025 4 similar and therefore, prayed that the iespondents should be directed to cance I the registered sale deeds executed in favour of, the 5th responclent and register lhe subject t'lat in f'avour of the Itt petitioner on account of the Five-Men Allotment Committee letter. l

5. [.earned Standing counsel for the respondent society, however, submitted that the Writ ['etition is not maintainable under Article 226 of tlte Clonstituti<ln ol'lndia as the [)rayer in the Writ Petition is to cancel the sale c{eecls in favour of the 5'l'respondent and therefore, only civil Corlrt can entertain such a prayer. He also submitted that the details oI the sale deeds were not given by the I't petitioner in.the Writ petition and there is tro statutory violation under the Registration .dct. [t is statecl that the dispute raised by the petitioner is a dispute under Section 6l of the I'elangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1g64, as complicated questions of fact are involved in the matter and there is altemative remedy which the t't petitioner has also availed by fiting the suit before the civil Court. Therefore, according to him, the ['t petitioner cannot pursue this Writ Petition. Further, in respect of W.p.No.46s\i2 of 20zZ and batch, it is stated that the directions in the said batch of writ Petitions are applicable to the writ petitioners in the said batch only and therefore, it is not appticable to the ['t petitioner in this writ petition. : .r , ,?i: . r i.rr:.ri . .'r:ri.. !i j' , i I W.P.No.80l5 of 2025 5 Further, on merits of the submissions of the l" petitioner, he submitted that the I" petitioner has paid only a surn of Rs.5,00,000/- till ?7.04.2011 as is evident from the additional counter tiled by the 4'h respondent society and it is submitted that u notice was also given to hitn on 30.10.2024 and since the i" petitioner <iid not cornpty wittr the sarne, a decision was taken to cancel his allotment and register thc subject flat in flavour of, the 5'h respondent. [t is stated thar though cletnatrd rtotices were issued and payments wcre nol paicl within t.irne, but made afler the deadline, the conduct of the parties has to be seel ald furtlrer that, the l" petitioner is stitt due to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. [{e also referred to page 48 of the additional counter affidavit ald the :' amendment which provides for cancellation of allotment if payments are not made. It is further submitted that a new Five-Men Committee has been constituted and the [" petitioner can seek consideration for a[lotment of un-allotted flats.

6. Learned counsel for the] ttl petitioner, however, refuted the contentions of the respondents sybmitted that no notices of demand or shortfalt for payment werelgiven orrserved to the l$ petitioner and further that the Managing Committee gf the society has no power to 'I l'' cance[ the allotment made by the Five.Men committee. [t is submitted W.P.No.80l5 of2025 6 that when thc respondent society issued NOC to third parties by creating some dclcuments, thc l" petitioner has approached the civil Court fbr' perpctua[ injunction restraining them frorn alienating the property and theretirre, it docs not act as re.s judicata in this Writ Petition.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record this Court finds that the undisputed facts are that the Ittpetitioner was allottecl flat No.M-2-510 by the [iive-Men Allotment Committee ancl thouglr the l" petitioner clairns to have made payment of Rs. t9,22,5001- by the year 202(1, it seems to be a staggered payment and the respondent 'society has submitted that the payments were not made within the deadline and therefore, notices have bden issued. As pointed out by the learned Standing CounseI for the respondent society, this matter involves disputed questions of fact which need verifrcation. This Court in similar matter in w.P.No .7981 of 2025, vide order dt.28.l 1.2025, has observed as lollows: "9. ..-.... T'he petitioner though claims that it is the responsib,ility gf tbg respondents No.2 and 3 lo direct the respondent No.4 to regtster the house in the name of the ,petitioner, as rightty pointed. out by the: learned counsel for the respondents, complicated questtbns of fuCtq are involved in this case. The quantlim of sqle considercttgn for the Row l{ouse and as to whether the petitioner hiadpafd thel:oafd o,*.unt , v'ithin time and whelher the demand nitiees hqve been .issued by :ii:i ,.r'4;^itj!; , r. .rlir )ili, . : :. .. 1 , . ., . .:. .: :. : . ,',.:.:i.-:: .,1 .:;.,;:',,1-'..i:i:l:i-'. 1: .... .t . W-P.No.80 l5 of 2025 .;!: jj:'l';:: riifli;€l:+;if ,:jtij.:::i, ..:.: ...:,. ' : 7 respondents and whether the petitioner has responded- to the same ond whether any poyments have been made by the wi,fe of Pathi Goutham Rajtt. are all questions of fact which need considerdtion and which cetlnol be decided hy this Court under Article 226 of thc Constitution o/ lndia. 'l'here is no .\totutory right which has been violated or .ttatlttc)ry dtq, v,7;r1, hus not been exercbed the authorities for interference by this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that .by. the petitioner u'ould have to approach the appropriate authority i.e., the Arb itrator for adjudication of the issue.

10. I'hereJbre, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to rhe pe tilioncr to approach the Arbitrator u,ith an appropriatc applicatiott and till such time the Arbitrator talces upt the interint appliccttion und takes a decision on the same, the parties are direcled lo maintain statusguo a.r on today i.e., not to register the said Row House infavour of any othcr person."

8. [n view of the same, this Writ Petition is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, liberty is given to the [ " petitioner to approach the authority concerned under Section 6 I <rt the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964.

9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition sha[[ stand closed To, 1 One CC to SRI S.A.

2. One CC to SRI M. 3. Two CCs to GP FOR SD/.S. MA!:LIKARJUNA RAO - ASSISTANT REGISTRAR IITRT'E COPYI SECTION OFFICER RAO, of Telangana HIGH COURT DATED:09/1 Zt2O2s \ 9,s. \ I ORDER WP.No.8015 of 2O2S DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION ,' , .i:1,',.