The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in issuing the proceedings vide Lr. No 217lMtG-[/GDL/sFS/E2IEE(Hg)/MBNRt2ot5 dated 141812024 and Lr No 217ltutG-il/cDL/sFS/E2lEE(Hg) /MBNR t2015 t21B dated 10.8.2023 direciing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,59,0131 inctuding the interest of l4percent interest on differicial cost of even though the petitioner paid an amount of Rs 17,80,000-00 as against final cost of Rs .15,16,g40_00 arbitrary and illegal and against the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the order of this Hon'ble court in wp 3841l2o1s and batch dated 4.7 .2023 and also contrary to notification and consequen y set aside and direct the respondents execute the sale deed by receiving the differential tentative cost if any due without insisting the interest on revised tentative co..;t. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ir:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Corrrl m3y be pleased to direct the respondnets to execute the sale deed for H.No 2'16ll\/lG ll situated at Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District without insisting th= interest @ 14% on revises tentaive cost from 2014 to 2023 by receiving dii[ential enhancement amount if any due. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN RED'DY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR HOUSING Counsel for the Respondent Nos.z & 3 : SRI C.BUCHI REDDY, Sr:) FOR HOUSING BOARD The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.ll536 OF 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3 - the Executive Engineer (Housing), the Telangana Housing Board, in issuing the proceedings vide Lr.No.2 I 7A4IG-IVGDL/SFS/E2/EE(Hg)/MBNR/2025 dated | 4.08.2024 and Lr.No.2 I 7A4lG- I VGDL/SFS/E2,EE(Hg)/MBNR l20l5l2l8 dated 10.08.2023 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,59,013/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty nine thousand and thirteen only) including the interest @ 14Yo'on the differential cost, even when the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 17,80,000/- as against final cost ofRs.l5,l6,840/-,as being itlegal, arbitrary and contrary to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.384 I ol20l5 and batch dated 04.07.2023, and for a consequential direction to respondent authorities to execute sale deed in favour the petitioner without insisting the payment of interest @ 14% from 2014-2023 on the revised tentative cost. 2

2. Heard Mr. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, learn,:rl counsel for the petitioner. and Mr. C. Buchi Reddy, learned stanrling counsel for the Telangana State Housing Board, appearing ft,r respondents, and perused the material on record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 _ the Telangana Housing Board has issued notification in leading newspapers inviting applications for allotment of houses under various categories in the year 2009. In responsr: thereto, the petitioner submitted application for allotment of' house under MIG-Il category constructed. by the Housing Board. opposite to railway station, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Distl ct, under self-financing scheme. Respondent No.3 issued al lorment letter vide No.l60/5FS/E2IEE(H/APHB/MBNR Divn,2r)10 dated

09.04.2010 to the peririoner allotting house No.217 under MIG_ll category subject to rhe payment of Rs.10,00,000i- (lupees ten lakhs only) towards tenrative costs. It is stated that e lirttment was made subject to enhancement ofcost of lOo/o over an(, above the tentative costs. J

4. It is submitted that maximum enhancement costs that could be enhanced by respondents was Rs. 1,00,000/- i'e., 10% of the tentative cost of Rs.10,00,000/- under the MIG-II category' Hirwever, respondent No.2 enhanced the cost to Rs.3,56,000/- for the house under MIG-I category, Rs.4,94,8941- under MIG-II category and Rs,5,58,I94l- under HIG category. Aggrieved by the enhancement, the petitioner and others filed W.P. No'20875 of 2015, u'herein interim order dated 08.07.2015 was passed, and the writ petition was finally heard and disposed by the common order dated 04.07.2023; the leamed Judge has not reduced the cost by noting that increase in the tentative cost appears to-he reasonable'

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated

04.07.2023 was passed on the consent of .the leamed counsel for the petitioners therein who agreed for paying escalated costs due to efflux of time and the same was recorded by the leamed Judge at paragraph No. l0 of the common order dated 04-07'2023' lnthe said order, direction was given to the petitioner and others to pay differential amount and upon such payment, respondents therein were directed to immediately register the sale deed in their favour' 4

6. It is submitted that subsequent to the contnron order in W.P. No.20875 of 2015 and barch dated 04.07.2023, Lie peritioner submitted representation to respondent No.3 for funir;hing details of payment to be paid by the petitioners. In responso, respondent No.3 has fumished starement (under Ex.p4) showing the following details: Final cost - Rs. 15,16,840/-, Notified cost - l{r;.10,00,000/- and differential cost - Rs.5,16,840A. (As per the VC and orders of the High Court without interest). The statement furthe,- shows that interest is levied @ l4o/o per annum from 30.06.2014 to

25.06.2021, quantified at Rs.8,63,350/-. Thereafter. :,y adjusting Rs.10,00,000/- paid by rhe petirioner on 25.06.2021, rl.e petitioner was directed to pay the differential cost including the interest for a sum of Rs.7,63,5301- (interest was calculated @ 14% pcr annum on the figure of Rs.7,63,530i-). Thus, by adjusting .:he sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (paid on 21.08.2021), Rs.1,90,000i- (paid on

25.08.2021), the petitioner was direcred to pay Rs.3,l:i.'1141-.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that interest demanded by the respondents @ l4%o per annum is arbitrary and 5 disproporlionate and also contrary to the order in W.P. No.20785 of 20 I 5 and batch dated 04.07 .2023.

8. Learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner has approached this Cout with unclean hands. [n fact the petitioner has submitted representation pursuant to the common order of this Court in W.P. No.20875 of 2015 and batch dated 04.07.2023. As per Regulation No.24(e) of I the Telangana Housing Board, Self-Finance Housing Scheme Regulations, 1975. interest was levied @ 14% which is also one of the conditions in the allotment letter incorporated at Sl.No.6.

9. Leamed standing counsel submitted that l4%o interest is reasonable. -Ihe Housing Board does not allot houses on commercial basis. If the interest is remcived or reduced by this Court, the Housing Board would be put to financial loss.

10. When the matter was heard on 12.08.2025,leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that without prejudice to his legal rights, the petitioner would pay interest @ 6Yo per annum. Today, 6 the learned counsel has also fumished copy of deman,l draft dated

22.08.2025 for an amounr of Rs.8,58,8i2l- I 1. ln the considered opinion of this Court, the pctirioner cannot be mulcted with penal interest @ 14% per annum for the period when the litigation was pending before this Court. It isr not the case of respondent authorities that the petitioner is irr any way responsible for delay in the disposal of the u.it peririon. The petitioner had been fair in offering to pay intere,st @ 6 yo per annum. The petitioner in fact has paid substantial amount of Rs.17,80,000/- towards sale consideration. Thus, i:rsisting the petitioner to pay interest @ 14% per annum is unjust and arbitrary. Moreover, the common order of this Court in W.p. 1.1o.20g75 of 2015 dated 04.07.2023 does not indicate that respordents were given liberty to charge interest on differential cost of the house. In any case, the petitioner voluntarily offered to pay irLtr:rest @ 60%.

12. Thus, in the interest of justice, respondent Nos.ll and 3 are directed to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the house No.217 allotted under MIG-II category on payment of 7 interest @ 6%o per annum lor the period of 2O14-2023 on the revised tentative costs.

13. With the above observations the writ petition is allowed in part. There shall bc no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD, ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER State of Telangana 'l . The Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Secre riat, at Hyderabad Hyderabad "njging Director, Telangana Housing Board,. Gruhakalpa' Nampally' Mahabubnagar Division, Mahabubnagar District Z. i-ne'fvf S. ilie gxecutive Engineer, (Housing), The Telangana Housing Board' 4. i;; CCa to"Cp rOR HOUS|NG, HigF Court for the State of Telangana at 5 o;; cC to sRt GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, A'dvgcale t-o!u-c] 6. o;; ca i; sRt c BUCHI REDDY, sc FoR HouslNG BoARD, Advocate 7. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad [OUT] (oPUC) . To SA BS ,€ ( ?t srP zffi L .9 HIGH COURT DATED:2810812025 ORDER WP.No.11536 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.