The High Court · 2025

HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32406 OF 2025 OR : (ORAL) Heard Mr. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. C.Buchi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Housing Board (TSHB), appearing for respondents No.2 and 3; and perused the material on record. i \

2. Learned Standing Counsel for TSFIB requested another two (2) weeks time to be granted for getting instructions. Such request is opposed by the leamed counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated

28.08.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No.11536 of 2025.

3. Recording the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is allowed in part in terms of the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by this Court in W.P- No.11536 of 2025' Consequently, the impugned proceedings vide Lr. No.84/MIG-I/GDL/ SFS/82/EE(Hg)/MBNR/2015 dated 14.08.2024 issued by respondent No.3 is set aside. Further respondent No.2 is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the house No'8 allotted under MIG-I category on payment of interest @ 6% per annum for the .) period of 2014-2025 on the revised tentative costs. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, stand closed. SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSTSTANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To

1. The Principal Secretary, Housing Department, secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. Housing Board.

2. The Managing Director, Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana

3. The Executive Enginee(Housing), The Telangana Housing Board, Mahabubnagar Division, Mahabubnagar District.

4. One CC to SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOUSING, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Ohe CC to SRI C.BUCHI REDDY, SC FOR TSHB [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of the order in WP.No.1'1536 of 2025 dated 28.08.20251 PSK. GJP HIGH COURT DATED i1l11112025 ORDER WP.No.32406 of 2025

1. lr - o14 3 o * 2OTBllN6 P i.)\ * PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITIO N No.ll536 OF 2025 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is frled 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 7/MIG-IVGDL/S FSIE2IEE(Hg)/MBNN2025 dated | 4.08.2024 and Lr.No.2 I 7/MIG-[VGDL/S FS 1E2|EE(Hg)/MBNR 120151218 dated 10.08.2023 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,5 g,Ol3l- (Rupees three lakhs fifty nine thousand and thirteen only) including the intere st @ l4o/o on the differential cost, even when the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.17,80,000/- as :: against final cost of Rs.15,16,8401-, 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 paym6nt of interest @ 14% from 2014-2023 l: :' ,* on the revised tentative cost- : a- f.I,. & -a: { .: !f ^.::-? ,. lr.. alhr Y -l&t t { a I 2

2. Heard Mr. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy' learned counsel for thepetitioner,andMr.C.BuchiReddy,learnedstandingcounsel for the Telangana State Housing Board, appearing for respondents' and perused the material on record'

3.ThecaseofthepetitioneristhatrespondentNo.2-the Telangana Housing Board has issued notification in leading newspapersinvitingapplicationsforallotmentofltousesunder various categories in the year 2009. [n response thereto, the petitioner submitted application for allotment of house under MIG-ll category constructed by the Housing Board' opposite to railway station, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District' under self-financing scheme. Respondent No.3 issued allotrnent letter vicle No.160/5FS/E2lEE(H)/APHB/MBNR Divn/2010 dated Og.O4.2Ol0 to the petitioner allotting house No.217 under MIG-ll category subject to the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) towards tentative costs. [t is stated that allotment was made subject to enhancement of cost of 10% over and 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., l0% of the 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-II categoryand Rs.5,58,lg4l- under HIG category. Aggrieved by the enhancement, the petitioner and others filed W.P. No.20875 of 2015, wherein 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 Learnedcounse1.forthepetitionersubmittedthatorderdated '04.07.2023 was passed on the consent of the learned cofnsel fof - '' the petitioners therein who agreed for paying escalated costs due to efflux of time and the same was recorded by the learned Judge at paragraph No.10 of the common order dated 04.07.2023. In the said order, direction was given to the petitioner and others to pay .!.ri..l.r. n f. .. differential amount and upon.such payment, respondents therein , ffi; l',ri"-: ;r-;ir:.- $ft?:r-:rr!ffi: ' were directed to ir;8ii'af,i, iffisr", the sale deed in their favour.'':::: i. ( . -.:- tii., ;a;", :F.L:.. ii'.

1.1:.q:i t-;l: ,+$;r:,{., ;i; .r- . -'i3 r x.ir(i$As.;r: 4

6. It is submitted that subsequent to the common order in W.P. No.20875 of 2015 and batch dated 04.07.2023, the petitioner submitted representation to respondent No.3 for furnishing details of payment to be paid by the petitioners. [n response, respondent No.3 has furnished statement (under Ex.P4) showing the following details: Final cost - Rs.15,16,8401-, Notified cost - Rs.10,00,000/- and difl'erential cost - Rs.5,16,8401-. (As per the VC-' and orders of the High Court without interest). The statement further shows that interest is levied @ 14% per annum from 30.06.2014 to

25.06.2021, quantified at Rs.8,63,350i-. Thereafter, by adjusting Rs.10,00,000/- paid by the petitioner on 25.06.2021. the petitioner was directed to pay the differential cost including the interest for a sum of Rs.7,63,530/- (interest was calculated @ l4o,i'' per annum on the figure of Rs.7,63,530/-). Thus, by adjustin-e the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (paid on 21.08.2021,,), Rs.1,90,000/- (paid on

25.08.2021), the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.3,13,7l4l-.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that interest demanded by the respondents @ l4o/o per annum is arbitrary and 5 disproportionate and also contrary to the order in W.p. No.207g5 of 2015 and batch dated 04.07.2023. 8' Learned standing counser for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner has approached this court with unclean hands. In fact the petitioner has submitted representation pursuant to the common order of this Court in W.p. No.20g75 of 2015 and batch dared 04.07.2023. As per Regulation No.24(e) of Telangana Housing Board, serf-Finance Housing Scheme Regulations, r97S,interest was revie d @ t4%which is arso one of the conditions in the arotment retter incorporated at sr.No.6. . ..,: : .r -:.-. :.. -.. --. ._,..*_-.... n: ,,-L;?T9d gtaging counget submitted ,hq -11[ i_nteresr is reasonable. Tl: H_ousing Board does nor ,ii"l, ;"rr.. on commercial basis. If the interest is removed or reduced by this court' the Housing Board wourd be put to financiar ross. . -._ .:_ ;:1_i:__ :_. - _ . _- ., r0. matter was heard on 12.0g.2025, tefrnEa courisel .",:].,..,.i , i for the petitioner submitted that without lr. r . ."- ^...-#... rights, the petitioner would pay intere st @ r' '- . :-:--:;. fu,, i ,:,*i.ri$+, 1{{*1-, **#,.. y,: . | .'. ,. ,. ;j;;.-- . . ..r 1-...r.. : '.i." ,: :... .l!I:' r. .... i"..J.:;. . *ih trglx- . :i...." , 'i. .-.* { ;., .-,,+l*l:-- - .- r-- i' .r: t, t '- . . .:ri. -:. !r*f{ij'i -."'.J,r*i5ffr6+o *i&*""' -]'drr- i 6 the learned counsel has also furnished copy for an amount of Rs'8'58 '8321-' 22-08'2025 of demand draft dated 1 t. In the considered opinion of this Court; the petitioner cannot be mulcted with penal interest @ ll%per annum {br the period when the litigation was pendingbefor;:T::: of respondent authorities that tf't p"titioner is in any way -t^:::: ]tt: responsiblefordelayinthedisposalofthewritpetition. Thepetitionerhadbeenfairinofferingtopayinterest@6ohper annum' The petitioner in fact has paid substantial amount of Rs.17,80,000/-towardssaleconsideration.Thus,insistingthe petitioner to pav interest @r4%:::"::::T, Moreor''er, the common order of this Court tn .:;H:t 2015dated04.0T.2o23doesnotindicatethatrespondentswere giventibertytochargeinterestondifferentialcostofthehouse. Inanycase,thepetitionervoluntarilyofferedtopayinterest@6%.

12. Thus, in the interest of justice' respondent Nos'2 and 3 are :, directedtoexecutesaledeedinfavourofthepetitionerinrespect of the house iG., fi allottedunder MIG-II category on payment 0f *'- ,t . 7 rnterest @ ay, per annum for the period of 2014_2023 0n the revised tentative costs.

13. with the above observations the writ petition is arowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, pending in the writ petition stand closed. if any, August ZB,2025 I\{S/GNP B. VIJA YSEN REDDY, J { i j 'I ': . .,.,iri*}}:.: '-'::iii:+& ..1{iM ,'.': ,: -. 'fl-<- ' '

1. - -.. ir.*.1_;.<._ -.;.,1i> .. :,.,1,'..1,.-. 't *,:s?ffi|, . fit'...: U--'i .iE-;- t,EHhr.. - , : .i..i :';'. - ,!q,^-.jj. . .i :,- . .. : . .:,_.. \ii. j: :;. -:r- :."a" " ,') ffi,u"' ' ::,. .,..,ri:,:i^, ri. ':fL4. , i-p!,:r. :.. i'tir:i;r :..,4J!'*rJ', .. r - '.:i'i.{l!.ffmH ,, r.&ii t {..}tliililFflec :-,ii,.,,. ..,fffi;;.,