High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order more particularly a writ of certiorari calling for the records in cTA No. 22 o'f 2022 on the file of Hon'ble Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad and Quash/set aside the Common Judgment daled 17.10.2024 in CTA No. 22 ot 2022 passed by the Hon'ble Co-operative Tribunal at Hyderabad, consequently declare that the petitioner is the original allottee of row house No. 51, situated in the respondent No. 4 society lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent society not to register any sale deed in respect of row house No. 51 situated in respondent No. 4 society in favour of the respondent No. 5, by suspending the operation of the common Judgment dated 17 .10.2024 passed in CTA No.22 of 2022 on the file of Hon'ble Co-operative Tribunal at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Main Writ petition WRIT PETITION NO: 31279 OF 2024 Between: fvls. N. fiilrudula, D/o. N. Sai Prasad Aged 27 102, Cannan Residency, Srinivas Housing Reddy District, Hyderabad- 500090 ears, Occ. lrlusician R/o. Flat No. ociety, Nizampret Vil!age, Ranga v J ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 4 6 7 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Cooperative Societies, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Reqistrar of Cooperative Societies, State of Telangana, Gruhakalpa Buildings, Opp. Exhibition Grounds, Nampally, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Commissioner. The Deputy Registrar/ Audit Officer, District Co-operative Audit Officer, Ranga Reddy Disirict, lntegrated District Office Complex, Kongara Kalan 501510 Ranga Reddy District. I\//s. Telugu Cine Workers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd , (Formerly AP Cine Wor-kers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.) Chitrapuri Hills, Manikonda Jagir, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District. Mr. Madhu Koneru, Sio. K.V. Rao, Aged 50 years, Ocr. Business, F/o. H-9- 603, Chitrapuri Colony, Manikonda, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its GPA Holder Sri. A.V. Umamaheswara Rao R/o. H-9-603, Chitrapuri Colony, Manikonda, Ranga Reddy District The Co-operative Tribunal, Represented by its Chairman at 7th Floor, Chandra Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad. The District Cooperative Officer, District Cooperative office, lntegrated District Office Complex KongaraKalan Vilage, - 501510. Ranga Reddy District. l Y ...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 pass an order to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order more particularly a writ of certiorari calling for the records in crA No. 24 of 2021 on the file of Hon'ble co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad and euash/set aside the Common Judgement dated 17.10.2024 in CTA No. 24 of 202.1 passed by the Hon'ble co-operative Tribunal at Hyderabad, consequently declare thai ftre petitioner is the original allottee of row house No. 5'l , situated in the respondent No. 4 society lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent society not to register any sale deed in respect of row house No. 51 situated in respondent No. 4 society, in favour of the respondent No. 5, by suspending the operation of the common judgment dated 17.iO 2024 passed in CTA no. 24 of 2021 on the file of Hon'ble Co-operative Tribunal at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the I\,4ain Writ petition. SRI B. CHANDRA SEN REDDy SENIOR Counsel for the Petitioner: COUNSEL REPRESENTING (lN BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS ): SRt. B VAMSHIDHAR REDDY, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3,6&7: Gp FOR COOPERATION (rN BOTH THE WR|T PET|T|ONS) Counsel for the Respondent NO.4: SRI P. MADHUSUDHAN REDDy (rN BOTH THE WR|T PET|TTONS) Counsel for the Respondent NO.S: SRI S M RAFEE (lN BOTH THE WRrT PETtTtONS) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I -/ THE HONOIIRABLE SMT JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WBIT PETITION NO.303 AND WRIT PETITT ON NO .31279 OF 2024 COMMoNoRDER Both these writ Petitions are filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Certiorari calling for the records in CTA No'22 of 2022 afi CTA No.24 of 2021 on the hle of the Co-operative Tribunal' Hydetabad vide common judgment dt'17'll'2024 and to set aside the same and consequently to declare that the petitioner is the original allottee of Row House No.5l situated in the 4th respondent society and to pass such other crder or orders'

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of these two Writ Petitions are that the 4ft respondent society was allotted land by Government of Andhra Pradesh for making plots to its members who belong to cine industry' The Govemment, in order to have transparency in making allotments' constituted a Five Men Allotment Committee vide G'O'Ms'No'658' Revenue (Asn.lII) Department, dt'04'07'1994 consisting of three (3) 1 W.P.Nos.30389 & 31279 of 2024 2 senior IAS officers of the Govemment and two (2) Members from film industry. The Five Men Allotment Committee made allotments of flats/row houses till 21.11.2015; and thereafter, the society made allotments with the approval of the General Body only in respect of the flats which fell vacant due to cancellation or for any other reason. It is submitted that the Five Men Allotment Committee in its meeting held on 29.11.2011, allotted Row House No.51 to one Mr. K. Ravi Shanker and on its cancellation, the said Row House was allotted to the 5th respondent by the Five Men Allotment Committee in its meeting held on

07.03.2013 and the 5th respondent claims to have made total payment of Rs.44,00,000/- to the society and has taken possession of the same. It is submitted that the official respondents subsequently have allotted the very same row house to the petitioner and have received an advance of Rs.8,25,000/- on 06.06.2013 and a turther sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on

28.12.2016 and when the official respondents were not coming forward to register the row house in favour of the petitioner herein, the petitioner approached the Arbitrator under the T.S. Co-operative Societies Act for a direction to register the property in favour of the petitioner herein. The Arbitrator has passed the award dt.20.09.2021 directing the society to allot Row House No.5 I to the petitioner herein in terms of the letter / <.1 7 W.P.Nos.30389 & i1219 of 2024 3 dt.17.08.2013 issued by the A.P. Cine Workers Co-operative Housing Society Limited and further that, if the petitioner consents to accept, the society was also granted liberty to allot similar properfy to the petitioner within a period of two (2) months thereafter by observing that the petitioner has already miserably suffered by the attitude of the society. Against the said arbitration award, the 5th respondent herein, has filed CTA No.22 of 2022, and the 4'h respondent herein has filed CTA No'24 of202l before the Co-operative Tribunal at Hyderabad'

3.TheTribunal,afterconsideringtheissueatlength,hasheldthat the allotment in favour of 5th respondent herein was made by the Five Men Allotment corrunittee and that the society has no authority to allot Row House No.5 1 to the writ petitioner, i'e', the 2nd respondent in the CTAs. The Tribunal directed the society to consider the case ofthe 2nd respondentintheCTAs,i.e.,thewritpetitionerhereinuponconsidering the genuineness of documents filed in I'ANo'83 of 2023 in CTA No'24 of2O2lincludingtheallotmentletterdt.lT.08.20l3forallotmentof available row house/MlG by following the due procedure as required' or else, to retum the amount paid by the 2nd respondent in the CTAs with accrued interest, within a period of six (6) months from the date of the l W.P.Nos.30389 & 31279 of 2024 4 judgment. The Tribunal passed the common judgment on 17-10.2024- Challenging the common judgment passed by the Co-operative Tribunal, the writ petitioner has filed both these Writ Petitions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for becoming a member of the 4th respondent society, a person has to be belonging to 24 crafts of Telugu film industry and has to be a member of any one of the associations of the 24 crafts of the film industry and the 5th respondent has obtained membership of A.P. Film Directors Association on the basis of fraudulent documents and therefore, the said association has already cancelled his membership and consequently, he could not continue to be the member of the 4'h respondent society and he cannot be allotted Row House No.51. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the 4fr respondent in trying to alienate the property in favour of the 5th respondent is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the police complaint given by the writ petitioner and upon investigation, the letter addressed by the police to the President/Secretary, Telugu Film Directors Association dt.28-02.2022 and the reply dt.29.07 .2022 of the Manager of the Telugu Film Directors Y W.P.Nos.30389 & 3 1279 of 2024 5 Association stating that the membership of the 5th respondent was terminatedintheyear2016asitwasfoundthatallhiscredentialswere false. The leamed counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to various documents to demonstrate that the 5th respondent is a resident of US and was never residing in India and therefore, he could not have been part of Telugu Film Directors Association' He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the receipts given by the 4th respondent in favour of the writ petitioner, in which Row House No'51 is clearly mentioned as allotted to the petitioner and he submitted that the Tribunal, without appreciating these facts, has allowed the appeal hled by the 5th resPondent.

5. Leamed counsel appearing for the 4'h respondent submitted that the 5h reSpondent continued to be the member of Telugu Film Directors Association and the document referred to by the petitioner dt.02.03-2022 is not born out liom the records of the society' It is further submitted that even if the same were to be taken into consideration' the membership was allegedly terminated in the year 2016, whereas the 5n respondent has been allotted row house in the year 2013 and he has already been put in possession of the same and the entire sale W.P.Nos.30389 & 31279 of 2024 6 consideration has been paid. It is submitted that the membership of the 5th respondent with the 4th respondent society continued and therefore, there is no truth in the contention of the writ petitioner that the 5th respondent is not the member of the 4th respondent society and is not eligible for allotment of Row House No.5l. In respect of the receipt of the amount from the writ petitioner, he submitted that the said amount was received as an advance in anticipation of allotment of a house and is not as consideration for Row House No.5 1.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent also supported the stand of the society and further submitted that the 5th respondent is well known for his contribution to the hlm industry and that he has directed various films. The leamed counsel has tried to draw the attention of this Court to the documents lrled along with the counter affidavit and to the films which were directed by the 5ft respondent. He submitted that the 5th respondent was a member of the 4e respondent society and therefore, the contention ofthe petitioner is not correct. 7 . Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that for becoming a member of the 4ft respondent society, one has to be a member of one of the 24 craft" associations Y W.P.Nos.30389 & 312'19 of 2024 1 involved in the hlm industry. Admittedly, the 5th respondent was also a member of the Telugu Film Directors Association and in that capacity, he has obtained membership in the 4'h respondent society. It is also an admitted fact that the Five Men Allotment committee has initialty allotted Row House No.51 to one Mr. K. Ravi Shanker and on cancellation of the same only, it was allotted to the 5th respondent herein. It also appears that the 4ft respondent society has received some monies from the writ petitioner and has issued allotment letters to the writ petitioner and Row House No.51 is also mentioned in the said allotment letters. Therefore, it appears that mischief has been caused by the 4th respondent society in allotting Row House No'51 to the writ petitioner after it has already been allotted to the 5th respondent by the Five Men Allotment committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter affrdavit filed by the 4th respondent in I'A'No'83 of 2023 in CTA No.24 of 20?l stating that the membership of the 5th respondent herein (i.e., the petitioner therein) was mere sham and fraud and that the petitioner therein is not entitled to any relief. However, it is also a fact that the 5ft respondent's membership with the 4ft respondent society has not been cancelled and the allotment of Row House No.5l by the Five I I W.P.Nos.i0389 & li 1279 of 2024 8 Men Allotment Committee has not been cancelled by the said Committee or by the society and there are no proceedings to this effect. Therefore, re-allotment of the same in favour of the writ petitioner by collecting part consideration of the property is the mischief played by the society. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in these Writ Petitions and any reason to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. However, the writ petitioner is eligible for retum of the entire amount along with proportionately accrued interest. The 4th respondent IS therefore directed to retum the amount paid by the writ petitioner with interest at the rate of 8o% per annum from the date of receipt of this order till the date of payment and also Rs.5,00,0001 (Rupees five lakhs) as compensation for causing agony to the writ petitioner.

8. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPYII SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTAN REGISTRAR I CTION OFFICER To, \

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Cooperative Societies, Secretariat, Hyderabad W./ \

2. f he Commissioner, Registrar of Cooperative Societies, State of Telangana, Gruhakalpa Buildings, 6pp. Exhibition Grounds, Nampally, Hyderabad.

3. .The Deputy Registrar/ Audit Officer, District Co-operative Audit Officer, Ranga Reddy bistrict, Integrated District Office Complex, Kongara Kalan - 501510 Ranga ReddY District.

4. M/s. Telugu Cine Workers Cooperative Housing S^ociety Ltd, .(Formerly AP. Cine Wor[ers Cooperative HoJsing Society Ltd.) Chitrapuri Hills, tvlanikonda Jagir, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District.

5. The Chairman at 7th Floor, Co-operative Tribunal, Chandra Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad.

6. The District cooperative officer, District cooperative office, lntegrated District Office Complex kongaraKalan Vilage, - 501510. Ranga Reddy District.

7. One CC to SRl. B VAMSHIDHAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] B. One CC to SRI P. IVADHUSUDHAN REDDY Advocate IOPUC] 9. One CC to SRI S MAFEE Advocate [OPUC] 1O.Two CCs to GP FOR COOPERATION ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

11.Two CD Copies KKS GJP $ HIGH COURT DATED:2910112025 I COMMON ORDER WP.No.30389 of 2024 AND WP.NO.31279 0F 2024 lHE S f,q 0 6 r[B 20?5 { * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS @c"ri' K.