The High Court · 2025

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 Respondent No 3 to register and release the RectificAtion Deed P.No.57012O24 dt6.11.2024 presented by the Petitioner and Smt Vasireddy Vani, with respect to the rectification of discrepancies that has arisen in Regd.Sale Deed No.4923212018 dt.3.12.2018 in Survey No. 191/36 of Kollur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: The BHEL Employees Model Mutually Aided Co-operative House Building Society Ltd, (BEEMAC Society), RC Puram, Container Cabin No.3, Opposite to H.No.523, Road No.51, BHEL Employees Cyber Colony, Osmannagar Kollur Village, RC Puram mandal, Sanga Reddy District rep.by its President J Sivnarayana ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.4 AND 1 2 M/S SSPDL Limited, having its corporate office at Serene Towers, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Asst.General.Manager G Pratap Reddy, s/o Ranga Reddy ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, MA and AD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

3. The Municipal Commissioner, Tellapur Municipality, Tellapur, Sanga Reddy District.

4. The Joint Sub-Registrar-I, RO (OB), Patancheru, Sanga Reddy District ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim order of Status Quo dated 06j2.2024 in W.P.No.34510/2024, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners :SRl. N SASIKALA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondents No.2 : SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY Counsel forthe Respondents No.4: SRI B.MAHENDER REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.34510 oF 2024 ORDER: Heard Ntlrs. N. Sasikala, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. B. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The petitioner filed a Memo vlde USR No. dated not pressing this writ petition against respondent No.3.

2. CASE OF THE PETITIONER i) The petit.ioner had undertaken a project to develop low-cost housing for the beneflt of employees oIBFIEL. The Housing Units were sold to respondent No.4, which in turn, allocated them to the employees of BTIEL by taking all necessary permissions including layout approval from HM)A. ii) In the sanctioned layout plan, dated 03.0?.2014 and layout permit dated 21.06.2022, it has categorically mentioned that no road exists. The area in question is specifically designated for .future expansion'. iii) It is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs. I .02 guntas Survey No. l9l136, situated at Kollur Village, ,.. -.- .rd!- -::-- 2 KL,J W.P No.34510 of2024 \ Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District' on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No'3482 of 2017' dated 03.03.2018 executed by M/s' SSPDL Properties Limited' its sister concem. Thus, it has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said ProPerty. iv) Thereafter, its name was mutated in revenue records' It also obtained conversion proceedings converting the aforesaid land from agricultural to non-agricultural' v) Out of the aforesaid extent' the petitioner sold an exent of 3080 square yards to Mr. Vasireddy Nageswara Rao and Mrs' Vasireddy Vani under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos'49230' 4923 I and 49232 of 2018, all dated 03'12'2018' An extent of 1515 square yards was acquired by respondent No'2 for road widening' Thus' an extent of 485 square yards of land is left with the petitioner which is hereinafter referred to as 'subject land'' vi) At the time of registration of sale deed in favour of Mrs' Vasireddy Vani, one of the boundaries is inadvertently mentioned as 'road'. Therefore, a rectification deed was presented mutually with respondent No.3 vide P' No'570 of 2024' dated 06'11'2024' Instead of rectiffing the said mistake, respondent No'3 sought a clarification from 7 I 3 KL,J w.P. No.34510 of2024 respondent No.2 as to the existence of road. Taking advantage of the same, on 02.11.2024 respondent No.2 accompanied by Town planning officer of 'l'ellapur Municipality and its staff at the instance of local political persons entered into the subject property and removed the storage container placed on the subject land without issuing any notice or opportunity. vii) The petitioner also gave representations dated 04.11.2024, ll.ll-2024 and29.11.2024 to respondent No.2 with a requesr ro prevent encroachments. Despite receiving and acknowledging the . same, respondent No.2 did not act upon the same. viii) Respondent No.2 instead of clarifuing the query raised by respondent No.3 about existence of road in municipal records, gave a reply dated 30.r1.2024 to respondent No.3 stating that as per sale deed bearing docurnent No.49232 of 201 g, a road is existence. Neither respondent No.2 nor respondent No.4 has any right to lay a road on the subject land.

3. CONTENTION S OF RESPONDENT No.2: i) Respondent No.2 denied the ownership of petitioner to the extent of Acs. 1.02 guntas in Survey No. l9l/36 of Kolluru \/illage. :.:Sttr Z''G'U}=T# I ,) I J 4 KL,J W.P. No.l45l0 ot2024 \ (' ii) The land in Survey No.l91l36 is part of the sanctioned layout dated 03.07.2014 and 21.06.2022, and there is no mention of specific extent of land in Survey No. I 9 I /36 is covered in layout. iii) The future expansion area was fuither sub-divided by the petitioner into three plots and sold to third patties vide the aforesaid sale deeds. In all the said documents, the subject land is shown as '40 feet wide road' and no land has been shown as remaining land of owner' Thus, no land is left with the petitioner' In the sale deed bearing document No.49232 of 2018, it is mentioned as 40 feet road to the east a' connecting to the HMDA Approved layout road iv) In fact, the road was already in existence. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 is interfered with the possession of the petitioner etc. is false and incorrect.

4. CONTENTIO NS OF RESPONDENT No.2: i) The petitioner entered into a MOU, dated 05.09'2012 with respondent No.4 society for developing a Housing Scheme for 1200 Members of the Society on the lands situated at Kolluru and Osman Nagar Villages. Accordingly, the petitioner pooled undisputed land to an extent of Acs.88.26 guntas in Survey Nos.3O/P and 191/P including the entire land of Acs.3.00 guntas in Survey No'191/36 betonging to Y 5 KL,J w P No 11510 of2024 M/s. SSPDL Properties Private Limited and made into a Layout vide permit dated 03.07.2014. Thus, there is no vacant/open land in Survey No.19l136 excluding the layout plots. Therefore, the petitioner has no right or claim or possession ofany land in Survey No. l9l136 ii) M/s. SSPDL Properties Limited purchased the land to an extent o{'Acs. 13.39 guntas in Survey No. 191, v#e registered sale deed bearing document No.19918 of 2006, dated 28.08.2006 including the land to an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas in Survey No. l9l,136l,{ and Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.19ll36lAA, making a total extent ol Acs.3.00 guntas in Sur-vey No.19ll36. The land purchased by M/s. SSPDL Properties Limited, vide the said document bearing No. 19918 of 2006 is made part of layout in2014 itself. Thus, IWs. SSPDL Properties Limited had left with no Iand in Survey No.l91136. 'fhus, any sale deed executed by M/s. SSPDL Properties Limited subsequent to the layout in favour of lWs. SSPDL Limited does not create any right/claim in respect of the land in Survey No. I 9l /36 in favour of the petitioner. iii) there is title dispute with regard to the sub.iect land in Survey No.191/36 of Kolluru Village, which cannot be decided by this Courr in a wnt petltron 6 KLJ w P. No.34510 of2024 iv) Even otherwise, as per the area statement in approved layout' the future expansion area is only 4232 square meters, but it does not speciff the survey number. v) In the layout, it was shown two areas as future expansion whereinoneareaisshownaslocalcommercialfutureexpansionarea covering 1200 square meters and the balance remains only 3032 square meters. The petitioner without any approval lrom the competent authority converted the said land into three commercial plots bV l.eaving existing 40 feet road towards east side. Plot No'l is covering 838 square meters (1003 square yards), Plot No'2 is covering 787'82 square meters (942 square yards) and Plot No.3 is covering 903 square meters (1080 square yards) and road affected area is 1266'73 square meters (1515 square yards), making a total extent of 3785'55 square meters i'e'' more than balance future expansion area' Thus, nothing remains with the petitioner. vi) If any land is available adjoining the main road' it may be part of Survey no.l9l, but not exactly Survey No'l9l/36' Even otherwise' there is no demarcation of land in Survey No.l9l/36 covering part of layout and the land outside the layout. Y 7 KL,J W.P. No 14510 of2024 vii) 40 Feet Wide Road is in existence even prior to the layout which was used to reach the agricultural lands and farm houses for more than 30 vears viii) As per the approved layout, the HMDA sanctioned 1265 plots of 180 square yards each. Out of which, 1 I 55 plots were sold to respondent No.4 society vide registered sale deed bearing document No.4367 of 201-s, d,ated 04.02.2015 and balance I l0 plots remained wirh the petitioner. 'fhe petitioner alienated the said 110 plots in fav.our of third parties by showing the subject land 40 feet road as approach road connecting 100 t-eet main road and they are using the very same road to reach their houses. Ilven the Mission Bhagiratha Drinking Water connection pipeline is also passing through the said subject land 40 feet wide road and the said work was also undertaken by the petitioner company itsel f on behalf of and at the expenditure of respondent No.4. ix) There is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 with regard to implementation of the said drinking water project and accordingly the petitioner started obstructing the members of society in using the said 40 feet road. Then, the petitioner filed a suit vide o.s. No.30 of 2024 before the principal Civil Judge, Sangareddy against some of the mentbers of respondent No.4. Thereafter, the same was 8 KI- J w.P. No 14510 of2024 dismissed as withdrawn on 18.10.2024. Suppressing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition' 5 ANALYSIS AND FINDING SO F THE COURT: i) In view of the aforesaid rival submissions' it is the main contention of the petitioner that it is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land. At the time of executing of sale deed bearing document No.49232of2018'inadvertentlyoneoftheboundariesismentionedas 'road'. Having noticed such mistake, both the pa(ies mutually gxecuted a rectification deed and submitted the same before respondent No.3 - Sub-Registrar for registration. But, respondent No'3 sought a clarification from respondent No'2, who in tum addressed a letter to respondent No.3 stating that there exists a 40 leet road' Further' taking advantage of such mistake, respondent No'2 is trying to lay a road on the subject land. In fact, there is no road in existence over the subject land' Whereas, respondent Nos.2 and 4 disputed the same contending that there exists 40 feetwide road connecting 100 feet main road for the [ast 30 years and the same is being used by some of the Members of respondent No.4. Y 9 KL,! WP No.345l0of 2024 ii) Perusal of sale deed bearing document No.49232 of 2018, dated 03.12.201 8 executed by the petitioner in favour of Mrs. Vasireddy Vani would reveal that eastern boundary is shown as '40 Feet wide Road to HMDA l-ayout'. Even in the plan annexed to the said sale deed also discloses the same. The said sale deed was executed in the year 20 18 and alter elapse of about six (06) years, both the parties to the said sale deed came fbrward and executed a rectification deed mutually contending that there was typographical mistake crepl in mentioning the eastern boundary as '40 feet wide road to HMDA I.ayout" instead of Survey No. 19l136 Part (Owner SSPDL Ltd. Land). After execution of the said rectillcation deed, they presented the same before respondent No.3 for registration, but the same was kept pending by respondent No.3 on the ground of seeking clarification from respondent No.2 with regard to existence of road. On receipt of letter from respondent No.3, respondent No.2 Municipality addressed a letter stating that there exists 40 feet wide road. In view of the same, respondent No.3 kept the said document pending iii) In view of the aforesaid submissions on either side, it is clear that there is dispute with regard to identification of property. Whether there cxists a 40 lect wide road and the same is being used by some of t0 KL.J W.P. No 34510 of 2024 f the Members of respondent No.4 society or it is the land belongs to the petitioner is a serious disputed question of fact. This Court can consider factual aspects which are not serious / complicated in nature in a writ petition frled under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. A writ petition is maintainable in contractual matters as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.r. But, certainly, this Court cannot consider serious/complicated questions of fact in a writ petition' iv) It is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that the petitioner had alienated 110 plots in favour of third parties by showing the 40 feet wide road. Now, the petitioner cannot tum around and say that there is no road. Even the rectification deed submitted by the petitioner is pending with respondent No.3. Thus' there are serious/complicated questions of fact which this Court cannot consider in a writ petition filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of tndia. The petitioner has to approach competent Civil Court and establish its right. The petitioner cannot seek adjudication of serious disputed/complicated questions of fact in the present writ petition. The said principle was also '. (2004) 3 scc 55i Y 1l KLJ W.P. No.34510 of2024 laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Ehsa n2. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain present writ petitions on the aforesaid grounds v) Even otherwise, it is contended by respondent No.4 that the petitioner filed a suit vrde O.S. No.30 of 2024 against the Members of respondent No.4 seeking perpetual injunction and the same was dismissed as rvithdrawn on 18.10.2024. Suppressing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and, therefore, it is not.entitled for any rclief. I)erusal of record would reveal that the petitioner filed the said suit on 13.02.2024, whereas the present writ petition is filed on

06.12.2024. Evcn then, the petitioner did not disclose the said fact in the present writ petition. Thus, there is suppression of fact by the petitioner In view of the sarne, by applying maxim "suppression yeri or suggestion I of falsi", the r,",rit petition has to be dismissed without going into the merits of the case. The said principle was also held by the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik3. 'l'hus, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 2023 Livelaw (SC) 8l'17 2025 INSC 2 r8 t2 KL.J W.P. No.34510 of2024 f

6. CONCLUSION: The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to approach competent Civil Court seeking necessary relief in respect of the subject land. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, ifany, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ASSt A T REGISTRAR E TION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRt N.SAS|KALA, Advocate. [OpUC] 2. Two CCs to cP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Tehngaia. [OUT]

3. O-ne C-C to SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA, Sc FoR MUNICIPALITY/MC. toPUcl

4. One CC to SRI B.MAHENDER REDDY, Advocate. [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP s z 1trEST4r€ ta( 0 7 lllAfl 2025 G ,+ J HIGH COURT DATED:0310312025 ( q J o o ORDER WP.No.34510 of 2024 .* DESPATC DISMlSS!NG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (-qqo 3 {