Katragadda Raviteja v. The State of Telangana

Order

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to declare the inaction of the respondent No.4 in canceliing allotted unit HIG I I DUPLEX No.4-103, situated at Chitrapuri Colony, Manikonda Jagir & Municipality, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict, by respondents No.2 & 3 , as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents No.1 to cancel the saie deed which were executed by respondent No.4 in favour of third party vide document No. 10 159/2022, dt.1.9.1 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, iearned Standing counsel for I I L l I I I I I l I i I I I I I I I 2 Telugu Cine Workers Co-operative Housing Society Limited appearing for respondent No.4.

3. Perusal of the record would reveal that sinL lar lis involved ir-r this rvrlt petition had already been dealt r,r.i t r by this Court extensively vide order dated 09.12.2025 in W.P. Nc .8015 of 2025.

4. In view ol thereof and for the reasons alikc. this Writ Petition is also dismissed. There sha11 be no order as to c r sts. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the authoritl, concerned under Scction 61 of the Telangana Cooperative Societie s . 'ct, 1964. Miscellaneous applications, if any, penc r-tg in this Writ Petition, shail stand closed. ST) .P. PONNA KRISHNA ASI ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J One CC to SRI S A SUBBA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI I\,4. PRATEEK REDDY, SC FOR TCWC 1S Two CCs to GP FOR CO-OPERATION ,High Cc.rrt for Telangana. [OUT] the State of Two CD Copies PVL 4 BS q. .- ':ir::- - -.i .l HIGH COURT DATED:0911212025 ORDER WP.No.26760 of 2025 f- ( 'ra -) ') i.) \ ')_ \\: |t [:' ?0ffi ,1- , L ,/,, \.',// .;,.' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ^)\ .,S-u 4- Y.L^ ma+s I [ 321e 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO: 801s OF 2025 Between: "l . Sravan Kumar, S/o. Iate M.G.Prasad Aged about 46 years, Occ, Cine Field R/o. Flat N0.203, Lakshmi Nivas. A.S. Raju Nagar, Opp. JP Nagar, lt,liyapur, Hyderabad

2. A.Suresh (Withdrawn), S/o. Satyanarayana Aged about 42 years Occ: Cine Field R:/o.HlG 1Oth Block, 806 Chitrapuri Hills lVlanikonda, R.R District. The WP is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of Petitioner No.2 as per c.o.dt.24.07 2025. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 4

5. t) 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, Ranga Reddy District, T.S. Telugu Cine Workers Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., (TCWCHS), TBC- 608, rep. by its Secretary, Chiapuri Colony. f\Ianikonda Jagir & It/unicipality, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District. Smt.Venkata Parvathi, w/o C. Subbarao. Aged about 63 years, Occ. Cine Musician, rlo. 5-101171, Sri Balaji Nagar, Road No.4,Puppalaguda, Manikonda, Ranga Reddy District. Sri C. Ashok Kumar, s/o Narayana, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, r/o. 7-5-87, Laxmi Nagar Colony, lt4ahabubnagar. R6 is removed from array of Respondents in this WP as per C.O d1.24.o7.2025. .,; j ...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 one in the nature of a Writ of lr,4andamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in cancelling allotted , I I i I i I .!' ,iF' . r€ *&..,H& gtst rH ...8: ( I I I I units t l-B-51 O and t,4-8-503 situated at Chitrapuri Colt r y, I\'lanikonda Jagir, Gandrpet lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District of the petitiorr rs herein is illegal, arbitraiy and in violation of principles of natural lustice a t corlsequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to cancel the sale deeds wh ( I were executed by respondent No.4 with NOC letter as well as DCO, Ranga F edd'r in favour of the ResponrJents 5 and 6 and directing the respondents 2 ar r -l to allot units 4,4-ll' 5'1 0 and IVI-8 503 situated at Chitrapuri Colony, l,/anikc nda Jagir. [iandipet It4and: Ranga Rr:ddy District to the petitioners hereln lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Pctition urrrier Sectjon 151 CPC praying that in thr r ;,r-ctttnstalrc€rs stat()d rn th,: :,.iiirlavit iii, d in support of illi-, petition, the High a;( I r' n':,ry tr. i) t:lsed tr di.eci ir-rr-. re sp.rn(onts 2 and :l to cancel the sale deeds ol ir(r urtits l\i-il 51O ::rrd Iv1-B-503 situatcd i:t Chitrapuri Hills, ft/anikonda Jagir, G: I dipet [\i1ardal, Ranqa Reddy District wirich were registered in favour of the ::spondents 5 and 6 pendinq disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.A. SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR COOPERI TION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M. PRATHEEK RE t DY Counsel for the Respondent No.5 & 6: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER .^- I I i j l .THE HONOTIRABLE SMT..IUSTICB T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETTTION NO.8OI5 OF 2025 ORDEII ln ttris \\rrit [)ctition, the petitioncls scckirrg a Writ ol Mandanrus dcclaring the action of rcspondcnts 2 and J in cancclling thc allottcd units N,1-2-5 l0 and M-tt-503 siruated ar Chitrapuri Hills. Mauikonda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, Itanga lteddl' I)istrict, as illcgal and arbitrary and in violation ol principles of'natural .justicc and to cancel tlie sale deeds exocutcd by the 4'h respondcnt with NOC letter as well as DCO, Ranga Reddy in lavour ol respondcnts -5 rndt 6 and to clircct rcspondcnts 2 and 3 to allot the said ur-rits in Iavour ot'thc petitioners and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Alter filing of this Writ Petition, vide order {1t.24.07.2025, the Writ Petition in respect olthe 2nd petitioner r.vas disrnissed as rvithdrawn and also the 6tl'respondent is removed frorn the amay of the respondents.

3. Brief facts leading i6 th" fl,lirg the present Writ Petition are that the I't petitioner claims to be a member of thc film industry and that the Five-Men Committee formed for allotments of units in Chitrapuri layout, have attotted Flat No.M-2-5 l0 to the l't petitioner and he has .''a. ., -indi , i&i, -irrailit ki*- r {I**a r-; . .;*d . -.!"d, _l!rrE. W.l' ]\ < 8015 of 2025 2 also rnade thc payment of Rs. 19,22,500i- as per thc srr cnr( r1t ol the -1'r' reslrondenr sot ietv rlurrrrg the pcriod lionr 07.08.2004 r , lii.()9.2010. As l)cr lhc all()tnrent letter, the cost of thc unit is Rs. 16,()(,000/- suhiect t<r escrrlrttions, chanqcs in arca as per FIMDA approvals rr I I thi. approvai ol thc (ir-nerral Ilt,tlv oi tltc socrety and it is statc(l I at sirrce tlte I pctitioner has paicl sLrhstantial atnounts as per the all< tmcnt lettcr. the birlancc u,ill bt' paid at tl-rc tirnc ot'rcgistration ancl tanciing ovcr of' phr sical possr-ssion ol'thc urrit. It is llso stated that 1lr,r l" pc-titione r has fihd O.S.No. l9O ol l024 belirlc the II Additional .trr: ior (livil .tudgc, Ita.icndranagar lirr- pt:rpctual injunction against respon J :nts 5 and (r and lras obtained interim injunction order in I.A.No.386 ol '.074 and the sr-ri1 is still pendinr. hut in thc rneantirne, respondents 2 antl J hrr.,c cancellec.l the ullotmcnt ol thc unit M-2-5 l0 and have also cxcc r ed sale decds in lavour of the 5'r' rcspondent. Aggrieved by the same, tl i ; Writ petirion is

4. l,earncd counsel appearing fior the I't petitione : has drawn thc attention ol this Court to allotment letter dt.3 1.07.20 I ( . whereunde r Flat No.M-2-5 l0 has becrr allotted to the l" petitioner and I e cost of the flat is mentioned as lLs. 16,00,000i-. l.ro* the details of the payment also, it is noticed that the ['r petitioner has madc substantial l) yrncnts in 2010, i ,- r. ..t#s" r. .(i,-:r l')- w.P.No.80l5 of 2025 3 201 I and therealter in 2018 atd 2020. Receipts to this effect lrave also been given by the society. The lI Atlditional Junior Civil Judge, Rajendrirnagar has passed orders dt.27.03.2024 in I.ANo.386 of 2024 in O.S.Nol90 of )0?.4 granting ad interim injunction in lirvour of the l'' I l)cti{.ioncr herein and against the respondcnts fi'om alicnating the sulrject propefly to any other persoll or persons. Howcver, it is noticcd tl-rat thc sooicty is also a party lhrough respondents 2 and 3 in thc suit. l,earncd counsel fbr thc l" petitioner has also drawn the attentior.r of'this Clourt to tlrc order of this Court d1.25.01.2024 in W.P.No.46520 ol 2022 and batch, wherein the Writ Petitions fited by sirnilarly placed persons have bcen decided by taking into considerafion the repoft of the Advocate Commissioners and respondents 2 and 3 tlierein were directed to verily flats/units allotted to the petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 1 8446, 16349, 16214 and.8415 of 2023 by the Five-Men Allotmenr Committee and ro allow tlie Management Committee of the society to register the units demanded by thern in their names within a period of four months from ttre date ol the order. It is stated that respondents 2 and 3 were also directed to verify the pending 160 flats/units and grant permission to the Managing Committee of the society to complete registration to cine workers. It is submitted that the case of the ['t petitioner herein is also ...:'&rr. I I l l : l i W.l'. \ ).8015 of 2025 4 similar and thercfore, prayed that the respondents shor ld be directcd to cancel the registered salc deeds executed in favour of r re 5'h respondent and register the subject llat in fnvour of the l'r petitit,r er on account of the Five-Mcn Allolrrent Corninittee letter

5. l-carnetl Standing Counscl lor the respondcnt : ociety, how,ever, submitted that tltc Writ Petition is not maintainable ur'< er Arriclc 226 ol the Constitution of India as the lrrayer in the Writ I'r I tion is to canoel the sale clccds in firvour of thc -5'l' 1s:ip6.dent and tlr: 'efore, onlv civil Court can entertain such a prayer. He also submitted t iat the details of the sale deeds were noL given by the l" petitioncr in. hc Writ Petition and thcre is no statutory violatiorr under the R.cgistrati,r r Act. It is stated that the disputt: raiscd by thc petitioner is a disputc ru r, tlrc 'fclangana Coopcrative Socictics Act, 1964, er Section 6l ol as complir:ated qucstions ol lict arc involved in the rnatter and Ll t re is altemativc remedy wliich the I 't petitioner has also availed by fi Iir g the suit belore the civil Court. Therelore, according to him, the 1"1 ,etitioner cannot l pursue this Writ Petition. Further, in respect of W.P,I,l ).46502 of2022 and batch, it is stated that the directions in the sai I batch of Writ Petitions are applicahle ro the writ petitioners in the sr i I batch only and therefiore, it is not applicable to the l'1 petitioner in ti ,s Writ Petition. ,\ I I ! I i W.P.No.80l 5 of 202-5 5 Further, on mcrits of the submissions of the l " petitioner,, hc submitted that thc l " pctitioner has paid only a sum ol 1ts.5,00.000/- till ?.7.04.?011 as is evident lrom tho additionat counter' filed tr_r, thc 4'r' rcspondcut socicty and it is submittcd that a notioe was also given kr hirn on 10. 10.2014 and sinc.-- the I ' pt titioner did not cornpiy ivitir rhc sanrc, a decision was taken to cancel his allotment and rcgister the subjcct llat in lavour ol the 5th respondent. It is stated that though demand noticcs rvere issued and payrnents were not paid with i n time, but madc alier thc deadline, the conduct of the parties lras to bc scen and lurlhcr that, thc 1" petitioner is sti[[ due to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. He also refered to page 48 of the additional counter alfidavit and thc arnendmeut which irrovides lor cancellation of a[lotment if payments are not made. [t is lurlher submitted that a new Five-Men Comrnittee has been constituted and the I't petitioner can seek consideration lor a[[otment of un-allotted flats.

6. Learned counsel for the l't petitioner, however, refuted the contentions of the respondents and submitted that no notices of demand or shotfall for payment were given or served to the 1't petitioner and further that the Managing Committce of the society has no power to cancel ttre allotrnent made by the liive-Men Committee. It is submitted _.,.. *.{ffi* ,;?d. ..;*-. ,);;; ,*8. ?.:.. .: :' r I I I i I I , L i ' l W.t'.II, .ti(]l5 oi 2025 | '. 6 that u,hen the re spondent society issued NOC to third rr Lrlies try creating some documellts, thc l" petitioner has approached t I r civil Coun lbr peryotlral injunction restraining thcrn lrom alienating -he pnrperty and therelbre, it &)es no1 act as rd,\ ltt,litLrtct in this Writ Pc-l tion. 7 . Having rcgard to the riva I contentitltts and thc t r- rteriirl on record. this Court finds that the undisptrted facts are that thc- 'r petitioner was allotted flat No,M-2-510 by the Five-Men Allotmcrt Cornmittee anci though the 1'' petitioner claims to hlrvc made paymonl rl Rs. 19,22,500/- by the year 2020, iL seems to bc a staggered payrnent ir rd thc respondent socicty has sLrbmitted that the payments were not riadc within the deadline and thcrefbrc, notices have been issued' As 1 ointed out by the leamed Standing Counsel lor the respondcnt s"r: ety, this matter involves disputcd questions ol lact which need verill': fion. This Court in simitar mattcr in W.P.No.798 1 of 2025, vide ort\er r t.28.11.2025, has observed as follows: "9. ..-.... The petitioner though claims that il is the resp) respondents No.2 and 3 to direct the respondent No.1 house in the name of the petitioner, as rightly poir,t learned counsel .ft.tr the resltondents, complicoled quz are involved in this case. The quontum of sale consilt Row House and as to whether the petitioner had poid tl within time and whelher the demand notices have bttr ribility of the o register the d out by the tions of facts ,ation for the z said amount r 'l ;i:,. :::i': ffi,.. ,s*, . +.:itu." .;-,.. i1,::ij:.]-..:]: _ jr t' ' .d+-: i\: ,.?#1' :; , --.,-1.. -: -.:;:,. W.P.No.80l5 of 2025 7 respondents tnd whether the petitioner has rcsponded to the same and v,helher any poyments have been made by the wife of Pathi Goutham Ruiu. are ( l questions o/ fact which need con.sideration and whtch turutot be decida.d by thit Court under Article 226 of the (:on.stitution ol lndia. IhL'rt is no stutulor! right v,hi.h ha-s bean violated or .\lulutory dutr u,hich has mtt been exercisad by the authorities t'or i tetlirence hy thi.s ()turt. There.lbre, this Court is of the opinion that tlt pt:titioncr vould hava to approac:h lhe oppropriale tuthorul t t. , lha .lrbilrutrtr .iitr udj utlAut ion o-1 tha i.ssue.

10. 'l here./bre. rhis w,rir ptrition iis rlt:porcd oJ tith tiberh, lo lhc pelitiotur lo dpltroach lhe /lrbitrator with an appropriate application uul lill such lime lhe Arbilrator takes up the intct int uppliL:ulion atd takes a decision on the .sante, the parties are directed ta uintain slelus quo aS on loday- i.e., nol to regisler the said Row Hou.st in/unur of anl,other persctn."

8. In view of thc samc. this Writ Petition is not maintainable and it is accordingly disurissed. No order as to costs. Ilowever, liberty is given to the I't petitioner to approach the authority concerned under Section 6 I of the l'elangana Cooperative Societies AaL, 1964.

9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall I i I . sland closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.S. MALLIKARJ UNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 one CC to SRI S-A. SUBBA RAo' Advocate toqugl i 5il" E6 i; siii M. Fnntregx REDDY' fdvocate toPUCl^ 5 YJJ" 66.i" cp Fon cooFEnnloN, High court for the state ot I elansana 4 Two CD CoPies BN BS , i;&{i. .. ,,':sr": , , ,..',: ' i.ig+ - I I i I I I l l l l I I I I I l HIGH COURT DATED:0911212025 ORDER WP.No.8015 of 2025 DrlMtsstNG THE WRrT PET|TION WITHOUT COSTS af: W I ' ];!. :' .]r:ijl^r;': '.