The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Article 226 ol lhe 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. 1 67lMtG-il/cDL/SFS/E2IEE(Hg)/MB N R t2ol s t232 dated 25 8 2023, Lr. No. 167lMlG-il/[ntct/LtG/EE(Hg)/THB/ MBNR Divnt2024 dated 20.2-2024 and Lr. No. 167/MtG-il/cDL/sFS/E2 /EE(Hg) /MBNR/2015 dated 14 B.2024 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs .l .1,99, 67gi_ which includes at 14 percent interest of Rs 6,06,29g-00 on the enhanced tentative cost as arbitrary and illegal and against the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the order of this Hon'ble court in \Np 3841/20i 5 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 c ifferential tentative cost if any due without insisting the interest on revised tentativer cost. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Ccurt may be pleased to direct the respondents to execute the sale deed for H.No 167/MlG ll situated at Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District without insisting the interest at '14 percent on revised tentaive cost from 2014 to 2023 by receiving Ciffential enahcement amount if any due. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR HOUSING Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI C.BUCHI REDDY, SC FOR HOUSING BOARD The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.l16 56 0F 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 v i de Lr.No. I 67IIMIG-II/GDL/SFS |E2IEE(Hg)/MBNR/20 I 5/23 2 dated 25.08.2023, Lr.No. 1 67/}vIIG-IIA4IG-I/LIG/EE(Hg/TI{B/ MBNR Divn/2024 dated 20.02.2024, and Lr.No.167lNfIG- IVGDL/SFS/82/EE(Hg)/MBNR/20 I 5 dated I 4.08.2024 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.11,99,678/- (Rupees eleven lakhs ninety nine thousand six hundred and seventy eight only) which includes l4o/o interest of Rs.6,06,299l- as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.384l of 2015 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% from2014-2023 on the revised tentative cost. 2

2. Heard Mr. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, leamr:d counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. C. Buchi Reddy, Ieamed stan,ling counsel for the Telangana State Housing Board, appearing for 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 ln Ieading newspapers inviting applications for allotment of houses under various categories in the year 2009. In respons,: thereto, the petitioner submitted application for allotment of house under MIG-ll category constructed by the Housing Boarrl, opposite to railway station, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Dir;trict, under self-financing scheme. Respondent No.3 issued alkltment letter v ide No. | 67 IMI G- tl/Gadwal Y -il,Ph-IIlE2l20 I 1 datr:d 08. 02.20 I I to the petitioner allotting house No. [67 under MIG-II category subject to the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees tr:n lakhs only) towards tentative costs. It is stated that allotment was rnade subject to enhancement ofcost of l0%o over and above the tent;ltive costs.

4. It is submitted that maximum enhancement cc,sls that could be enhanced by respondents was Rs.1,00,ffi01- i.... l0% of the 3 tentative cost of Rs.10,00,000/- under the MIG-II category. However, respondent No.2 enhanced the cost to Rs.3,56,000/- for the house under MIG-I category, Rs.4,94,894/- under MIG-lt category and Rs.5,58,1941- under HIG category. Aggrieved by the enhancement, the petitioner and others filed W.P. No.20875 of 2015, whereln 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 learned Judge has not reduced the cost by noting that increase in the tentative cost appears to be reasonable.

5. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submifted 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. In the 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.

6. It is submitted that subsequent to the common order in W.P. No.20875 of 2015 and batch dated04.07.2023,the petitioner 'jr] !-i. ft-- trc- {:f' 4 submitted representation to respondent No.3 for furnishing details of payment to be paid by the petitioners. In responr€:, respondent No.3 has furnished statement (under Ex.P4) showing the f'ollowing details: Final cost - Rs.14,94,840/-, Notified cost - 11s.10,00,000i- and differential cost - Rs.4,94,840/-. (As per the VC and orders of the High Court without interest). The statement furt rr:r shows that interest is levied @ l4%o per annum from 10 06.2014 to

31.08.2023, quantified at Rs.6,06,299l-. Thereafter. by adjusting the amount paid by the petitioner, he was dire,:ted to pay Rs.1 1,99,6784.

7. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitte<i that interest demanded by the respondents @ | 4%o per annum i: ,,rrbitrary and disproportionate and also contrary to the order in Vi.P. No.20785 of 2015 and batch dared 04.07 .2023 8 Leamed standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. In fact the petitioner has submitted rt:presentation pursuant to the common order of this Court in W.P. No.20875 of 2015 and batch dated 04.07.2023. As per Regulatic,n No.24(e) of 5 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. Learned standing counsel submitted that 14yo interest is reasonable. The Housing Board does not allot houses on commercial basis. If the interest is removed 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 @ 6% pei zrnnum. I l. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be mulcted with penal interest @ 14% per annum for the period when the litigation was pending before this Court. It is not the case of respondent authorities that the petitioner is in any way responsible for delay in the disposal of the writ petition The petitioner had been fair in offering to pay interest @ 6 %, per annum. The petitioner in fact has paid substantial amount towards I I sale consideration. Thus, insisting the petitioner to pay interest @ t I e rE:ili s; 4a dlf, c*'. 6 l4Yo per annum is unjust and arbitrary. Moreover, the common order of this Court in W.P. No.20875 of 2015 dated 04.07.2023 does not indicate that respondents were given lib,:rty to charge interest on differential cost of house. In any case, the petitioner voluntarily offered to pa1. interest @ 60Z.

12. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to ex€clrte sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the house No. l67 allotted under MIG-ll category on payment of interest @ 6%o per annum for the period of 2014-2023 on the revised tentative costs. within a period of four (4) weeks from the dare of receipt of a copy of this order.

13. With the above observations the writ petition i:; allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicaticns, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD.ISMAIL I DFPUTY REGISTRAR I \ \ SECTION OFFICER To at Hyderabad.

1. The Principal Secretary, Housing Department' secretarrat' State of Telangana Z i-f,e fvfinaging Director, Telangana Housing Board, Grulrakalpa' Nampally' 3. i6e Executive Engineer (Housing), The Telangana Ho 'rsing Board' 4 i;;-CCa ro"Gp FOR HOUS|NG, HigF Court for the Stat,.- of Telangana at Mahabubnagar Division, l/lahabubnagar Distrlct Hyderabad. . Hyderabad. [OUTI I

5. One CC to SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to SRI C-BUCHI REDDY, SC FOR HOUSING BOARD, AdvocAte

7. Two CD Copres (oPUC) SA BS V \ HIGH COURT I I DATED:2810812025 t I ..,t,' ,,'/,'(' 5 ! -,:\. : -\\' J..t. 2 )\.. ( 2 !l sEP 2U5 l; \ ORDER WP.No.11656 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 2{