B. Raja Shekhar Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

7. Mr. Akkineni Srinivasa Rao,, S/o Gopal Rao, Aged 38 years, R:/o M-2-805, Chitrapuri colony, Manikonda, Hyderabad. (R7 is impleaded as per Court Order dated 16.09.2025 in l.A.No.1/2025) Petition Under Article 226 of Ihe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be .....RESPONDENTS pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Nl( rne in the nature of .2 to 4 in not taking action against the 5th respondent for execution of registered ( favour of the Petitioner in respect of the MIG Flat bearing layout in Sy.No.24611 , situated at Dr. M. Prabhakar Rec Manikonda Jagir Village and Municipality, Gandipet Mar District, as per the allotments made by the 5 Men l\ constituted under G.O.Ms. No.65B, Revenue (ASN-lll) 04.07.1994 as bad, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional an(l the respondents to take necessary steps for executiorr conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of abo,r ;onveyance Deed in No. M-2-805 in the Jy Chitrapuri Hills, Jal, Ranga Reddy otment Committee )epartment, dated consequently direct of the registered r said flat forthwith. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir,; rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High courl nay be pleased to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to restrain the sth Respo rdent from creating any third parti/ interest in respect of the MIG Flat bearinll No.M-2-g05 in the layoutin Sy.No.2461 1, situated at Dr.M.prabhakar Reddy Chitrapuri Hills,Manikonda Jagir village and Muncipality ,Gandipet Mzrr dal ,Ranga Reddy District, and also direct the 3rd respondent to permit the Sth respondent to, execute Conveyance Deed in favour of the petitioner in resgrr ct of the said Flat, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD SADIQ ALI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Gp FOR COOPERIi'lON I Counsel for the Respondent No.S : SRI M.pRATEEK REDDy, SC FOR TELUGU CINE WORKERS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : Gp FOR REVENUE 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 WRIT PETITION No.12O4a OF 2o24 DATE: O9.L2.2O25 Between: B. Raja Shekhar Reddy The State of Telangana & 6 others AND ORDER: ...Petitioner ...Respondents In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to declare the inaction of the respondents No.2 to 4 in not taking action against the 5th respondent for execution of registered Conveyance Deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of MIG Flat bearing No.M-2-805 in Sy.No.246/1, situated at Dr.M.Prabhakar Reddy Chitrapuri Hills, Manikonda Jagir & Municipality, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as per the allotments made by the 5 Men Allotment Committee, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to take necessary steps for execution of the registered conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Co-operation appeai-ing for respondents 2 No.l to 4 and Sri M.Prateek Reddy, learned Stand r.g counsel for Telugu Cine Workers Co-operative Housing S.r:iety Limited appearing for respondent No.5

3. Perusal of the record would reveal that similztr lis rnvolved in this writ petition had already been dealt with I 1' t.his Court extensively vide order dated 09. 12.2025 in W.P. No.8t) I 5 of 20'25

4. In view of thereof and for the reasons alike, tl- i ; Writ Petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Hor,r'ever, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the authoritY {:o' tcsl-n.6 ,.4.. Section 61 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Acr , 1964 Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ;OWRI SHANKAR . ; .ANT REGISTRAR ,/ SD/.A.H.S f*i,' i Ecriou oFFlcER to ,l. ,*o CCs to GP FoR CooPERATION' High Court f , ?H's8TftJ?'# REVENUE, High courtrorthe . iii'".,"bdiJ s'nr-rvrbHo sADIQ ALI' Advocale- [oPUCl 4 ONE CC tO SRI M.PRAT,#KiETJbV:iT-Cq{TELdGU " ;ij"oFEdiiive'Housril6 bocTrrv LrD' Advocate (oF uc) u Hvderabad. [OUTI lli3."i":,Tl"t"oo, or the order date e-12'2025 in wF'' 'lo'8015 th( ltate of Telangana St5tt: rf Telangana at )INE WORKERS or 20251 SA BS Yt' "F_rrrF.F # a t HIGH COURT DATED:0911212025 \'IE S .Jo t * [] ORDER WP.No.12048 of 2024 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS, q o"t$n} &^"t W.P.No.8015 of 2025 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADI{AVI DEVI WRTT PETITIONNO .8015 0F 2025 ORDER In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 and 3 in cancelling the allotted units M-2-510 and M-g-503 situated at chitrapuri Hills, Manikonda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and to cancel the sale deeds executed by the 4m respondent with Noc letter as well as DCO, Ranga Reddy in favour of respondents 5 and 6 and to direct respondents 2 and 3 to allot the said units in favour of the petitioners and to pass such other order or orders.

2. After filing of this Writ petition, vide order dt.24.07.2025, the a writ Petition in respect of the 2"d petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn and also the 6threspondent is removed from the array of the respondents.

3. Brief facts leading to the hling the present writ petition are that the 1't petitioner claims to be a member of the film industry and that the Five-Men committee formed for allotments of units in chitrapuri W.I.. Io.8015 of 2025 \, 3 layout, have allotted Flat No.M-2-510 to the l't pet tioner and he has also made the payment of Rs.19,22,500/- as per the s atement of the 4ft respondent society during the period from 07'08'2004 to 28'09'2020' As per the allotment letter, the cost of the unit is Rs'16' 10'000/- subject to escalations, changes in area as per HMDA approvals i nd the approval of the General Body of the society and it is statecl that since the 1" petitioner has paid substantial amounts as per the a iotment letter' the balance will be paid at the time of registration al t handing over of physical possession of the unit. lt is also stated that t. .e 1't petitioner has frled O.S.No.190 of 2024 before the II Additional unior Civil Judge' Rajendranagar for perpetual injunction against respc ldents 5 and 6 and has obtained interim injunction order in l'A'No'386 r f 2024 and the suit ., is still pending, but in the meantime, respondents 2 r rd 3 have cancelled the allotment of the unit M-2-5 l0 and have also ert cuted sale deeds in favour of the 5'h respondent. Aggrieved by the same, 'his Writ Petition is I frled.

4. Leamed counsel appearing for the l't petiti' ner has drawn the attention of this Court to allotment letter dt'3 I '07 '2 I L 0, whereunder Flat No.M-2-510 has been allotted to the l" petitioner an I the cost of the flat is mentioned as Rs.16,00,000/-. From the details oI lhe payment also, it W.P.No.80l5 ot2025 4 is noticed that the l.tpetitioner has made substantial payments in 2010, 20rr and thereafter in 201g and2020- Receipts to this effect have arso been given by the society. The II Additionar Junior civil Judge, Rajendranagar has passed orders dt.27.03.2024 inI.ANo.3g6 of 2024 in O.S.No190 of 2024 granting ad interim injunction in favour of the l.t petitioner herein and against the respondents from alienating the subject property to any other person or persons. However, it is noticed that the society is also a party through respondents 2 and,3 in the suit. Leamed counsel for the l't petitioner has arso drawn the attention of this court to the order of this Court dt.25.Ol.Z0Z4 in W.p.No.46 520 of 2022 and batch, wherein the Writ petitions filed by similarly placed persons have been decided by taking into consideration the report of the Advocate Commissioners and respondents 2 and 3 therein were directed to verifz flats/units allotted to the petitioners in writ petitions No.rg446, r6349, 16274 and 8415 of 2023 by the Five-Men Allotment committee and to allow the Management Committee of the society to register the units demanded by them in their names within a period of four months from the date of the order. It is stated that respondents 2 and 3 were arso directed to verifu the pending 160 flats/units and grant permission to the Managing committee of the society to complete registration to cine t \ W.P.l,l .8015 of 2025 5 workers. It is submitted that the case of the 1't petitic,r er herein is also similar and therefore, prayed that the respondents shot Ld be directed to cancel the registered sale deeds executed in favour olt Le 5'h respondent and register the subject flat in favour of the l't petitior 3r on account of the Five-Men Allotment Committee letter.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent s rciety, however, submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable un I :r Article 226 of the Constitution of India as rhe prayer in the Writ Pe:r .ion is to cancel the sale deeds in favour of the 5'h respondent and thr:r :fore, only civil Court can entertain such a prayer. He also submitted I at the details of the sale deeds were not given by the l" petitioner in t re Writ petition and there is no statutory violation under the Registratic r Act. It is stated that the dispute raised by the petitioner is a dispute unC :r Section 61 of the Telangand Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, rs complicated questions of fact are involved in the matter and th,: e is alternative I remedy which the 1't petitioner has also availed by filin ; the suit before the civil Court. Therefore, according to him, the 1'r p :titioner cannot pursue this Writ Petition. Further, in respect of W.p.Nc .46502 of 2022 and batch, it is stated that the directions in the saii batch of Writ Petitions are applicable to the writ petitioners in the saic batch only and w.P.No.80l5 of 2025 6 therefore, it is not applicable to the l" petitioner in this Writ Petition. Further, on merits of the submissions o[ the 1" petitioner, he submitted that the 1't petitioner has paid only a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- till

27.04.2011 as is evident from the additiooal counter filed by the 4'h respondent society and it is submitted that a notice was also given to him on 30.10.2024 and since the I't petitioner did not comply with the same, a decision was taken to cancel his allotment and register the subject flat in favour of the 5'h respondent. It is stated that though demand notices were issued and payrnents were not paid within time, but made after the deadline, the conduct of the parties has to be seen and further that, the l" petitioner is still due to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. He also referred to page 48 of the additional counter affidavit and 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 l" petitioner can seek consideration for allotment of un-allotted flats.

6. Learned counsel for the l " petitioner, however, refuted the contentions of the respondents and submitted that no notices of demand or shortfall for payment were given or served to the 1" petitioner and further that the Managing Committee of the society has no power to W.P.tl .8015 of 2025 7 cancel the allotment made by the Five-Men Committ,: . It is submitted that when the respondent society issued NOC to third p; rties by creating some documents, the l" petitioner has approached tlr cir.il Court for perpetuai injunction restraining them from alienatin-lr he property and therefore, it does not act as res judicata in lhis Writ Pct i ion.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the nLr terial on record, this Court finds that the undisputed facts are that the I" petitioner was allotted flat No.M-2-510 by the Five-Men Allotment Committee and though the l" petitioner claims to have made paymenr c 1Rs.19,22,500/- by the year 2020, it seems to be a staggered payment a r I the respondent society has submitted that the payments were not r ade within the deadiine and therefore, notices have been issued. As pc inted out by the leamed Standing Counsel for the respondent soc rr ,y, this matter involves disputed questions of fact which need verifici 1 on. This Court in similar matter in W.P.No.798 I of 2025, vide order dt 28.1 i.2025, has t observed as follows "9. ....... The petitioner though claims that it is the respctns biliN of the respondents No.2 and 3 lo direct the respondent No.4 n, 'egister the house in the name of the petitioner, as rightly poittc I out by thc learned counsel lor the respondents, complicated questi, are involved in this case. The quantum of sale considct a ns of facts ion.fbr the Row l{ouse and as to whether the petitioner had paid tht : d amounl W.P.No.80l5 of 2025 8 within time and whether the demand notices have been issued by the respondents and whether the petitioner has responded to the same and whether any payments have been made by the wife of Pathi Goutham Raju, are all questions of fact which need consideration and which cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia. There is no statutory right which has been violated or statutory duty which has not been exercised by the duthorities for interference by rhis Court- Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner would have to approach the appropridte authority i'e'' the Arbitrator for adjudicatton of the issue

10. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Arbitrator with an appropriate application and rilL such time the Arbitrator takes up the interim application and takes a decisiott on the same' the parties are directed to maintain stat.ts-quo as on today i e ' not to register the said Row House in favour of any other person "

8.Inviewofthesame,thisWritPetitionisnotmaintainableandit is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs' However' liberty is given to the l't petitioner to approach the authority concerned under Section 61 ofthe Telangana Cooperative Societies Act'1964' 9 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall I stand closed Dare'.09.12.2025 Sw JUSTICE T. MADIIAVI DEVt