The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 J M/s. Vasudeva Realtors Pvt.. Ltd-, a,_company registered under Companies Act, 1956, Occ Business, having its office dt 6-3-341t11, Lalithaniali, Sa'i Baba Temple Road, Dwarakapuri Colony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad reprdsehted by its Managing Director Smt. Suneeta Devabhakthuni' Wo D.V.S. prasad. ated about 39 years, _Occ Business, R/o Villa No.39, Lalitha Bloom Fi6ld, Nanakaramguda, Golconda post, Hyderabad The Government of Telanqana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Regiskation-l) DepartmentlSecietari'at eritlaings, ff yEeiaUaO The Commissioner &.lnspector G9.ne.ral of Stamps and Registration, Govt. of Telangana, Mozzam Jahi Market, Hyderabad.

4. The District Registrar of lrlarriages & Assurances, Ranga Re,ddy District. at Itloosapet, Hy'jerabad. (Respondents 2 & 3 cause title amended as per court order dated 11.06.2014l ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: SRI ANIKETH REDDY' REP' FOR SRI M.V.S.SURESH KTJMAR

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI VIKRAM POOSERLA Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: $Rl MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM, GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO: 19018 OF 2008 Between:

1. G.Krishna Reddy, S/o. Late Shri H.T.G.Reddy, aged about 35 years' Occ Business, R/o H.No.62'd Street. Anna Nagar, Chennai 2 Charles Propedy Developers (P) Ltd ' having its-Re-gd .9l1tt, at No 332, 9rh Street Fxtn, t)'andhrpurbm, Coimbatore'641012, lamil Na'lu,- Iep. by tJs urtnot'^O person & 'GPA Holder, B. Siva Sundara Sandilyi S/o' .Late. S.ri A.Narivrna M -rrthy, aged about 58 years, Occ: Business' R/o H l'{o 1-'l- 214lA, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad-500020 Petitioner No.2 is impleaded as per C.O. dt- 31-1-14 in WPMP 42545 of 13 ..,PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Telangana, rep the inspector General Stamps and Registratton, Musheerabad HYderabad. C.T. is amended as per C.O' dt. 17104.12025 vide lA'No"l OF 2015 (wPMP.7821i 2015) .) The District Rdgistrar, Ranga Reddy

3. Nimmala Jayalami, W/o. Late Prabhakar, aged about 51 years, Occ' Housewife

4. Smt. Anuradha Alias Manasa, Wo- R Sudheer, aged about 28 years' Occ: Housewife

5. Nimmala Santosh Kumar, S/o Late Prabhakar, aged about 28 years, Occ: Business

6. Nrmmala Madhavi, Wo. Sri Hari, aged about 28 years, Occ: Housewife 7. Smt Sobha Ra.li alias Latha Goud, Wo. Prakash, aged about 29 years, Occ: Housewife 8- Smt. Ivlanasa @ Nimmalla Anuradha, Wo Balakrishna Goud, aged about 29 years, Occ: H t':sewife

9. Nimmala Srinivas, S/o- Late Nimmala Veeraiah, aged about 37 years, Occ: Business '10. Smt Suvarna Alias Anita, Wo M Ramesh, aged about 41 years, Occ: Employee 1'1. Nimmala Rajamani, Wo. Late Raja Mallaiah, aged about 37 years, Occ: Business l2.Nimmala Vasavi, Wo. Dhanraj, aged about 38jears, Occ: House wife, R/o. 1-56/1, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampalli, R.R.District. 13- Nimmalla Rohit Kumar, S/o. Dhanraj, aged about 20 years, Occ: Studeni Respondents No.3 to 13 are Rio. of R/o. 1'5611 Hateezpet Village, Serilingampali, R R. District. '14 Smt. Rajyalaxmi Alias Vijaya Laxmi, Wo- B.Ramnath, aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife

15.Smt. Raieshwari Alias Latha Kumari, Wo. B.Narsimha Goud, aged about 42 years, O-cc: Housewlfe 16 N.Venu Gopal, S/o. Late Ramakrishnaiah, aged about 55 years, Occ: Business .lT.Nimmala Ramakrishna, S/o. Venugopal, aged about 22 years, Occ: Student 18. Nimmala Anand Kumar, S/o- Venu Gopal, aged about 21 years, Occ: Student '19. Smt. Prasanna, Wo- Sudhakar, aged about 26 years, Occ. Housewife Res. No. 14 to 19 are R/o. 1-57, Haleezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District.

20. S.V.Raiagopal Reddy, S/o. S.V.Nagi reddy, aged 40 years, R/o. Road No.14, Door Nb.B-2-310/fu8, Nandi Nagar, Banjarahills, Hyderabad. 21 P.Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Hanumanthu Rao, aged about 45 years, Rlo- 201, Balalakshmi Nivas, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

22. V.Visweswara Rao, S/o. Hanumaiah, aged about 45 years, R/o- 6-10'120, Ganesh Basthi, Kothagudem, Khammam RR20 to 22' are impleaded as per Court Order dt 151O4120O9 in WPMP.No.33474/08.

23. Joint Sub-Registrar-|, Oio. The District Registrar, RR District. R23 is impleaded as per G.O. dt. 30/1f /10 in WPMP.No.10298/09

24.Nimmalli Vishu Goud, S/o. Late Nimmalla Srinivas, aged about 21 Yea$, Occ: Student

25.Nimmalla Vishal Goud, S/o. Late Nimmalla Srinivas, aged about 20 yeats, Occ. Student Respondent Nos.24 & 25 are R/o. 1-57, Hafeezpet Village' Seriiingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (Respondent Nos.24 & 25 are brought on records as Lrs of deceased ilesdondent No.9 as per C.O. dt. 17.04.2025 vide l.A.No.2 ot 2015 (wPirjlP.No.10747 ot 2o15), in w.P.No.19018 of 2008) ...RESPONbENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India priying that in the circumstances stah-'d in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue vrrit direction more particutarly ore in the rature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No 2 in registerilg the cancellation of Release deed bearing No.4972 of 2008 dt 30'06-2008 where under the Release l)eed bearing No.73 of 2008 is cancelled unilaterally as illegal vo,id and consequently declare the cancellation of Release deed Lrearing No.4972 of 2008 dt 30-6-2008 is void Counsel for the Petitioner No.1: SRI SRICHARAN TELAPROLU SRI PAPAIAH P1DDAKULA FoR Counsel for the Petitioner No.2: SRI P.BADRI PREMNATH Counsel for the Respondent No.'tr, 2 & 23: SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM, GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3, 5 to 10 & 12lo 19,24,25: SRI P.S.S'RAO Counsel for the Rcspondent No.20 to 22: SRMDULA SRlNlvAli The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL NO.1616 OF 2014 AND WRIT PETITION NO.19O18 OF 2OO8 coMMON JUDGMENT (Per Hon'ble Sntt. Justice Rer]k.l Yard) Heard Sri Papaiah Peddakuia, learned counsel representing Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel foi' petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.19O18 of 2OO8, Sri Aniketh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No- 1616 of 2Ol4 and Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katrani, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for the ofhcial respondents. Perused the record. IV.A.No.1616 of 2O14 2. The Writ Appeal is preferred by appellants/respondent Nos.4 to 8 aggrieved by the order dated lO.O7 .2012 in W.P.No.25686 of 2O 1 I .passed by the learned Single Judge'in favour of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 representing State Government in the urrit petition, whereby the writ petition filed seeking action against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for registering cancellation document dated 31. 1O.2OO9 in document No'6457 of 2OO9 which is unilaterally executed by the writ appellants I 2 HAC,J(Si',J) & RY,J \v.A.No.16l/, of 2014 & W.P.No-1' 018 of 2008 without thr knowledge and consent of the \l.rit per-itioner by partia111, ciulcelling the development agreement-cr.tm-general power of a -1 orney (GPA) dated 27 .O2.2OO5 to be d -'clared as illegal and contrarl to Rule 26(i[k) of A.P. Registralion Rules, 1908 (for r;hort, 'the Rules') and consequently to calcel the SAINE W.P.No.19O18 of 2OO8

3. The V,'rit Petition is frled for declaring the act.ion of the Distnct Rt'gSstrar of Ranga Reddy (respondent No.2) in registering t're unilateral cancellation of Release dc'd bearing No.4972 of :lOO8, dated 3O.06.2008 uide Release der:d bearing No.73 of 20C,8 as i1legal and to declare the said Relea se deed as void. Facts of W.A.No.1616 of 2Ol4:.

4. Respondent No.1/writ petitioner is a Privare Limited Company rvhich entered into a development agreen Lent dated

27.06.2005 with M/s. Sangam Dattaiah Goud and 16 others who include the writ appellants. The subject mat ter of the development agreement is a building complex to be crrnstructed in Acs.5.0? guntas of land in Sy.Nos. 136, 137 a-nd 156 of Khajaguda l/illage, Serilingampally Mandal with a facility to have a comnlon approach road of 33' x 320'. The dr.velopment I \ a 3 IIAC.J(SPJ) & RY,J W.A.No.1616 of 2014 & !fl-P.No.ln)18 of 2008 agreement is registered with the Registrar of Ranga Reddy at Moosapet. In terms of the development agreement' 'the writ petitioner paid a sum of Rs'25,O0,00O/- as refundable security deposit to the writ appellants towards their undivided 1 / sth. share. Further, the writ appellants agreed to sell 5O7o of their undivided share to the writ petitioner' The writ petitioner obtained permission from GHMC and HMDA and developed the property. While things stood thus' the writ appellarts executed a partial calceliation of development agreement-cum- GPA on 30.10.2009 and the sarne was registered with the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District at Moosapet' Aggrieved by the unilateral execution of partial 5. cancellation of development agreement cum-GPA dated 30. 10.2009, the writ petitioner hled W'P'No'25686 of 201 1 for declaring the said document as illegal and contrary to Rule 26(i[k) of the Sules and violative of principles of natural iustice' The said writ petition was a'llowed by the learned Single Judge after a lengthy discussion about the nature of document together with the application of Rule 26(i[k) of the Rules and Rule 58 of the Rules. The hnding of the learned Single Judge reads as follows: * I I 4 HAc,J(s PJ) & RY,J \Y-A.No.1616 of 2014 & W-P.No.' 9018 of 2008 "It '1 ls already been mentioned ttrat Rule 26(i)(k) of tlr: Rules enables he registering authority to refuse registration o{ a deed of canc: lation executed by onty one of the parties and pulports to can(el the convcyance through sale and that the agl eement ctatcd 1l''.06.2O05 has all the ingredients o[ such conr eyance' Assumng that the Rules has no application' it need; to be verihcd as to whether small fraclion of one of the parl ies can cancel -lre above transaction In any bilateral transaction, mutual rights and obl gations are delrned for each of them- Wherever many persons ccnstitute a Partl r'i2., \/endors or purchasers' their rights and obligations are joi!I1 and several, unless a different arrangement is irrdicated in rhe (locument itself lt may be possibte lor a parL" ' in its entirct',r. \riz., vend.ors or purchasers, as a whole' to rcs ile lrom transar,;1ion. It is however impermissible for a small pr rtiori of the pa ties to Put an end to be cntire transactiorl-"

6. Witl-. thc above hndings as to facts and law' the learned Single Ju,lge by applying the legal ratio laid down in ?hota Ganga" Laoni aftd nnother a' Goaernment of Andhrd Prad.esh dnd otherst arrd Ydnala Malleswo-ri o' Andnthult Sagannmat, allowed the writ petition leading to liling of the present \['rit APPeal' Facts of The ivrit petitioner No 1 is a businessman and intended 7. to purchz.s,e land from one Ramadevi, u'ho represented herself' to be tht' owner of land IN Sy.No.54l2 admeasuring Ac.1.37 I (2010)l s sac 207 2006(6) 1,r. r 523 a 5 HAC,J(SPJ) & RYJ W.ANo.1616 of 2014 & rw.P.No.19018 of 2008 guntas and another piece of land in Sy.No- 56 admeasuring Acs.3.22 guntas situated at Hafeezpet Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. The said Ramadevi informed the writ petitioner No. 1 that the property is mortgaged to A.P. State Finance Corporation as collateral security for the loan granted by the corporation to M/s.MNG Marine Cargo, Rajahmundry. The said property was proceeded for sale by the Corporation for the purpose of realizing the dues. The writ petitioner No' 1 negotiated with A.P. State Financial Corporation and Ramadevi' The said negotiations culminated in the writ petitioner No- 1 purchasing property from Ramadevi by paying part sale consideration to Corporation and getting the document released'

8. The writ petitioner No.l purchased the said property under two registered sale deeds bearing document No'24498 of 20Ci6 and. 24497 of 2006 of even date dated 02.12.2006' The land was surv-eyed and demarcated by revenue d'epartment uide file No.K3 / 2226 / 07 arld the land was delivered by the writ petitioner No.1. The land originally belonged to four brothers, vrz., Nimmala Veeraiah, Raja Mallaiah, Prabhakar arrd Venugopal. As such, by way of abundant caution after purchasing the property under two separate sa'le deeds from 6 t1AC,J(:.]PJ) & RY,J W.A.No.1616 of 2014 & \V.P.No. 19018 of2008 r-l Ramadevi, the writ petitioner No.1 obtained registered Release deed bearieg document No.73 of 2OO7, dated O3.O I .20O8 from all thr: fanuly members of Nimmala Prabhakar i.e. respondent Nos.4 to 2rl. While things stood thus, respondent lfos.4 to 20, who execl.)ted the Release deed hearing documer t No.73 of 2O07, rvithout arry reason approached respondent No.3 and executed < ancellation deed uide document No.4972 of 2O08, dated 30.C16,.20O8. According to the nrit petitioner No.1, said registration of unilateral cancellation o[ deed ought rot to have beer-r execLrtcd and thcrcfore the nrit petition is hlet to declare the action c,f respondent No.2 in registering the carcellation of Release der:rl document as illegal and to declare thc said Release deed as void -

9. The r;ubject matter in Writ Appeal No.1616 o[ 2O14 and the currerr-, u,rit petition are about validity of unilateral ca-ncellatiori of a registered deed, hence both matters; have been tagged together. Submissions of writ appellants:

10. Lear rred counsel for the writ appellants wor.rld submit that Rule l.)rr(i)(k) of the Rules refers only to conveyance of sale but does nor refer to an agreement of sale-cum-GPA lrhere there ) ) \ 7 HAC,J(SPJ) & RY,J w-A.No.1616 of 2014 & W.P.No.19018 of 2008 is no transfer of title involved. It is argued that the phrase 'conveyance on sa-le" was not dehned under the providions of Registration Act but is dehned under Section 2(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is urged Lhat the tearned Single Judge erred in iirterpreting Rule 26(ixk) of the Rules by holding that an agreement of sale is also a conveyance and therefore, prohibited execution of unilateral calcellation deed. According to the writ appellants, the development agreement dated 27.06.2005 does not satist/ the ingredients of conveyance for the purpose of invoking Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules. Further, as per Rule 58 of the Rules under RegistraLion Act, it shall not be duty of reference offlcer to enquire into the validity of the document presented before him and therefore, the document dated

30.10.2OO9 is in accordance with law I 1 . The writ appellants sought to distinguish the legal ratio laid down in Tho_ta Ganga Laxtni's case (1 supra) and Yanala Ma.llesuta-ri's case (2 supra) on the premise that tl.e nature of a sale deed is different from that of an agreement-cum,GPA and therefore unilateral carrcellation is permissible. i 8 HAC.J(S[ J) & RY,J \('-,LNo.161( of 2014 & W.P-No.19118 of 2008 Submission I of the writ petitione r/res pondent No.1 in w.A.No.1616 of 2Ol4 and the writ Petitioner W.P.No.190 J.8 of 2OO8:-

12. l.earned cotrnsel for the writ petitioner relil)d on the Laxrni's casc (l s -rPra) and judgmen ts of Thota Gaddotn lasr.maioh dnd others a. The Commissioner and Ganga Inspector General and otherss '

13. Learnecl counseL for the writ petitior-rer veherre rtly argued that the Sr- b-Regrstrar unclcr Rule 26(i)(k) of the [it l':s does not have powe- to register a unilateral document u'hen there is a prior regisr-t:recl <locument i'e without participatiorr of all the parties 1o the registered conveyance deed' Submissions of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in W.A.No.1616 of 2Ol4:- 14. lea-lred Government Pleader for respondent Nos'2 to 4 supportecl the rvrit petitioner stating that the Sub Registrar does not have power to register unilaterai cancellation dered' In -that , ) I w.P.Nos.2o68: {2a12 arld.2lg2 ol2013' dated 07-04-2016 9 HAC,J(SPJ) & RY,J W..{..No.1616 of 2014 & W.P.No.19018 of 2008 context, reference is made to the judgrnent of this Court in' W.P.No.3863B of 2Ol2 dated 1O.O4.2O24. Analysis of the Court: 15, The writ appellants have executed unilatera-l partiai- cancellation of development agreement-cum-GPA dated

27.O2.2OO5. The development agreement-cum-GPA is originally executed between the writ appellants and the writ petitioner. Now the point to be considered is whether such unilateral canceliation of a registered deed, whether it is a sale deed or an agreement of sale or a development agreement cum-GPA or a gift deed is valid under law. In that context, the definition of 'conveyance' under Section 2(10) of the Registration Act has to be looked into, which is as follows: 'Conveyance' :- 'Convcyance' includes a conv-eyance on sale and every instr-Ltment by which proper[y, whether movable or immovable, is transferred intcr vivos ard which is not otherwise specificaltf provided for by Schedule t (or by Schedule 1-A) as the case may be. The Rules framed under the Registration Act clearly lay down the procedure to be followed for registration of cancellation deed. Said Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules is as follows: "26(0GXD The registering officer shatl ensure at the time of Presentation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registercd deed of conveyances on -/,/l I 10 HA(',JI SP.l) & RY,J W.ANo.1i16 of 2014 & W.P.Nc.19018 of 2008 sale ,r(rlbre him that such cancellaaon deeds are executed by all he cxccutant and clainrant parties to thc previously registcred conveyance on selc and that such cancr:l ation deed is accompanied by a declaration sho*,ing rrutual consen[ or orders of a .ompetent Civil or High Court or State or Ccntral Cov( .nment atutulling the t ansaction contained in the previously registered decd o[ co rvcyance on sale; I'ro1, ded that the registering officer shall dispense r,' ith t1c cxecutioa of cancr,[]ation deeds by executant and clainant parties to the prer iously registered deed; of conveyances on sale bcfore him if the cancellafion deed is executed by a Civil ]udge or a Governmen[ Officer competent Lo cxecuto Co,,erruncnt Orders declaring the properties contained in the previously registered ccnveyance on sale to th': lovernment or Assigned or Endow,ment lands or propertie, not registerable by ar.y provision of law."

16. Thr: primary contention of the writ appellan -s is that a developmen t agreement-cum-GPA does not fall un<ier the defir-ritior-r ol "conveyance" as per Section 2(': O) of the Rcgistratror Act and therefore, Rule 26(i)(k) of the llules is not applicable. Said issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Gaddam Laxmq.iaht case (3 supra).

17. In Gaddann Laxrnaio,h's case (3 supra), it is L,e1d lhat: "If a deed of cancellation is allowed to be registercd c/ithour the knovrlidge and consent of other party to the dccd/do( umenr, sought to be cancelled, such regisl,r-ation would causr: viol,rtion to the prrrLciples of natural justice ald lead to unnc:essary litigation, amenating therefrom. xg>i regtstrabon and unilateral carcellation o[ documents sLtch as Developnrent Agreement-cum-Gereral power of Attorne] undcr the Registration Act is not permissible in law." I ) u HAC,J(SPJ) & RY,J W.ANo.1616 of 2014 & W.P.No.19Ot8 of 2008

18. The registration of cancellation document dated 3l.lO.2OOg in document No.6457 of 2OOg is not permissible as per statutory provisions, Rules ald established legal precedents. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed- by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

79. Coming to the subject matter of the Writ petition, the subject is registration of unilateral cancellation of Release deed, wherein the executor relinquishes his rights in immovable property in favour of the other par[r. Whereas, unilateral cancellation of such a Release deed adversely affects the right such party in whose favour the rights in immovable property is relinquished. A Gift cleed wherein there is trarsfer of rights by one party in favour of another is akin to a Release deed. Dealing with the issue of unilateral calceilation of.gift deed, this Court in W.P.No. 38 6gi -of 20 t2 dated 1 O.O4. 2024, hettt that: "Admittedly, ttre Gift Deeds which were executed in favour of the petitioners have been unilaterally cancelled by the respondent No_2 on 05.03.2O11- The petitioners are not parlies to the aforesaid Deeds of Cancellation. Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules reads as under: 26(i,(k) That the Cancellation t)eed of the previousty registered deed of convcyance on sale of immovable property is exccuted by both the cxecutlng and the claiming parties therieof unless such Carcellation Deed is executed under the orders ofa competent Court or under Rule 243_ t I I I I I i l I l I i I d 12 HAC,J(:,PJ] & RY,J W.A,No-16 i6 of 2014 & ![.P.No.19018 of 2008 1'hus, it is cvident that the Sub Registrar cannot regi.,ter the Deecl ol ,lancellation until and unless the same is execr rted by both th,r parties or is executed under the orders of cortpetent Court o: under Rule 243 of the Rules- 'lhe rlbresaid eventua,lities under Rule -26(i)(k) ol tht Rules have nol becn fulfilled in the instant case- Therelo:-e, the cancell:rtron ol Gift Deeds is in contravention of Rule 26(i)(k) of the Ru k s and the same cannot be sustained in thc eye of I aw-." In vierv of the iegal ratio laid down by this Court, the Writ Petition has to be allowed.

20. In [re result, W.A.No. 1616 of 2Ol4 rs disnrissed and W.P.No. I90iB of 2OO8 is; allowed. Therc shall be no ,rrder as to As sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pcncl jng if any, stand disposed of. ThafRule Nisi has maile A6solirte iii respect ot W.P.No.19018 of 2008 as above witness The Hon'ble SRI SUJOY PAUL, The Acting Chief Justice on this Thursday, the Seventeenth Day of April, Two Thousand anrl Twenty Five. I //TRUE copy/l I .""5i,'^lltEt?+Im"- , \ '- - \, sr,ctton oFFtcER j / I To, .1 . The Princrp;rl Secretary, Revenue (Registration-l) Depanment, Secretariat Buildings, llyderabad, Government of Telangana.

2. The Comm,ssioner & lnspector General, of Stamps and Relyistration, Govt. of A,P , Mozzarn Jahi [\larket, Hyderabad.

3. The lnspector General, Stamps and Registration, Musheeritbad, Hyderabad, Government of Telangana.

4. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy. 5. The District Moosapet. riyde-rabad. . Registrar of lvlarriaqes & Assurances, Ranga Reddy District at -

6. Joint Sub-Registrar_|, O/o. The District Registrar, RR District. 7. One CC to SRI M.V.S.SURESH KUiUAR, Advocate tOpUCj 8. One CC to SRt VIKRAM POOSERLA, Advocate.[OpUC] 9 One CC to SRt SRTCHARAN TELAPROLU, Advocate tOpUCl 10. One CC to SRt p.BADR| PREMNATH, Advocate tOpUCl 11. One CC to SRt VEDULA SR|N|VAS, Advocate tOpUCl t12.One CC to SRI p.S.S.RAO, Advocate IOPUCI 13. One CC to SRt ANTKETH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 14. Two CCs to Gp FOR qIA.fyfS_& REG|STRAT|ON, High Court for the State '15 Two CCs to Gp FoR REVENUE, High court for the State of rerangana at of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Hyderabad [OUT]

16. Two CD Copies BSR HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 , I 5,{r\l g \\\ s a a c \,|) tt I COMMON JUDGEMNT + n- '''- WA.No.1616 of 2014 & WP.No.19018 of 2008 DISMISSING THE W.A.No.1616 of ZO14 & ALLOWING THE W.P.No.19018 of 2008, WITHOUT COSTS a 1l nt-