High Court · 2025

Judgment

4. lH.i"Ef"?:l"i?t',1ffi xss,'J'Ji",iJ'{l"f"ii"":'"?\i?u:3$13"'"' Hyderabad The Zaheerabad Municipality, Rep'by its Commissioner'Zaheerabad' Sanga ReddY District The Town planning officer, Zaheerabad Municipality Zaheerabad' Sanga Reddy district 8I"Y:::H3?13ifi i:hul},fl ?ii*,"'"J.lf i['3,?"""0'o ':$',10'$'"ienlfi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution .of

lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in tn"--"itii"ii-tiLJ therewith' the High court mav be Dleased to issue un ,pp,op'i"it'i'ii' o'Jtt or direction' more particularly one in ihe nature of WRIT oF MAN;AluUs'0"J"" the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in permitting to cancel i;;-atf'J;Jas per the-Reqistered Development Agreement cum GPA u"ring'to"li{t'-5a7'ol2ol'8 dt'-2-6-2018 wherein petitioners are empowered to register ir-r-t-lf"'" gifr Jeed in favour of the 2nd respondent jo-r"* and violative of HMC Act and Municipality is iilegal, violative of Article, SOOn or tiJ'Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents not to cancel tiiJ girt O;"d of 10 pe^rcentaoe of land mortgaged in favour of 2nd respondent in respect of Ac' 12-10 gts in-Sy'Nos 343/Al ' 343/4' "ruitr"ivl-""olntiv 343/EE and 343/Y of Zaheerabad Reddy district. IANO: lO 2024 village, Zaheerabad Municipality' Sanga Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that. in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support'Jitn" p"iititi't' i19 nisn court mav be pleased to i'"oi t!-"'""i'r the riortoaoe deed executed for direct the respondents ' '"i Ltp"a of A"c'-12-10 sts in Sv'Nos 10% of land with the ,td ;;;;;tl" of Zaheerabad village' zaheerabad 343/Al, 343/A, 343/EE "|1i'-i+ali irl""i.iirriiv,-,;.nga Ceoov oistiict penaing disposal of the writ petition' Counsel for tlhe Petitioner: SRt PARAVASTU KRISHNA counser for the Respondent No'1: ?rt-[ffi H:Jlt[ihl-TrNrsrRArroN & Counsel for the ResPondent No'2 & 3: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR ZAHEERABAD MUNICIPALITY Counsel for lhe Respondent No'4: SRI VIJAY B' PAROPAKARI WRIT PETITION NO: 36295 OF 2024: Between: 3;Yllt'X&-",PBl*?il-'#3,'*"'31i'tilililli?3ili ttltanit ,,iaa, Hyderabad - 500 089' Aoed about 56 Years' 4tF Floor, Lanco Hills, ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Slate of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary' Municipal . Alhili;i*'-fi; & tjiuan ber'"rorit"nt Depi', Secretariat' Hvderabad' 2. The Zrheerabad Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner' Zaheerabad' SangareddY District - 5O2 22O '

3. The S:ation House Officer, Police Station' Zaheerabad' Sangareddy District' 4. The Director, Town & Country Planning, Hyderabad' 5. Venuctopal Sarda, S/o- Srinivas Sarda, Aged about 55 Years"Occ: Business' " Ri;.t'. ft;.7:5:s6, n""n"nnJp"i2itl"e6uao rown & Mandal, Sansareddv District.

6. Nasrasimha ReddY, Busin,-'ss, R/o. Koth S/o. Prathao Reddv, Aged about 62 Years, Occ: ui (e), zane'eraoad, Sangareddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstanc,3s stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pteased to i:isue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of ""ni"I;p;ihq subject land on-the basis of Mandamus,declaringtheactionoftheRespondents2.&3atthebehestofthe unofficial Responden'ts in seeking a iv ilg"ponoen-ts 5 and 6 in favour of the the iilegal Gift Deel'"rr"g"drv "*"rt"o' 2nd Respondent without prior notice oitotio*ind Ou9 process of law is challenged in this writ petition as being arbitrary,. ill;!3.1';il violaiive of Articles 14' 19 (1) (g)' 21 & 300-A of the i;;rtitrfun or rnoia'IXJ *nt.quently direct the Respondents' more particularly t[" zJ nespondent not to upon or fence any portion of the subject land, untesri"o ,"tiia rinat r"ior1-iti"leased, after compliance of all the to tn. retter of 4th Respondent conditions mention-ei"in-Ann"*rr"-r"lil"*10 addressed to 2nd Respondent on golg,.iozo and a-s, per his own letter dated ih" rrno i,i iv N"5ryy,. 343/EE' 343/AA & 343/A1' 12.03.2023 in so i;;; admeasuring nc.z.1? Gl;.,-i;.2.15 Gt;'n". i.rS Cis- anO Ac' 5-00 Gts'' located in a compact btock, totalty ,Orn"r"riinU 4". ii.O+ 6ts., situated at Town and 'ftrr"Orf 2iheerabad, Sangareddy District' lA NO: 1 OF 2024 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPcprayinglh?tlthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the.petiltl", in" ffigh Cgurt may be pleased to direct the beh'est of the unofficial the 2nd n"rponi.-nt--not to tar." aiv" ;"0. ;t Respondents anO ience or take or",Ini O"rttl ol l9I9 in Sy' No' 343/U' 343/EE' Ac'2'15 Gts'and Ac'S- 343/AA & 343/A1, admeasuring nc'zlii 00 Gts., located in a compact bl-ock, totally admeasuring Ac. 12.04 Gts., situated at Town a UanOai Zaheerabad' Sangareddy District' -Gi"l a::?^].?-'9" . lA NO: 1 OF 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayinglh?tlthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit fited in support of the p"titiJ;' ih""nigrt C9'.d may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent herein to proceej ;iih thJ registering of case as per the instructions or srp"rint.noent or poticl, 6r"g; R.diy vide Memo Dt' 23'01'2024 against the 1st ,"JponJ"ni herein, p""oi"g"Jisposai of the w'P' No' 36295 of

2024. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 petition under section 151 Cpc praying_that.in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the.;[il';:."tt* iigh. court may be pleased to i"'r r as party respondent No 7 to 1 1 in imptead tne propos"i ,;;po^oents N;. the Writ Petition. Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY B' PAROPAKARI counser for the Respondent No'l' -7 & "rt-5ift HHll?5lhl[)r'rrNrsrRArroN Counselfor the Respondent No'2 & 4: SRI P' KRISHNA REDDY' SC FOR MUNICIPALITY Counsel for the Respondent No'3: GP FOR HOME Counselforl:heRespondentNo.5&6:SRIPARAVASTUKRISHNA WRIT PETITION NO: 7917 OF 2025: Between

1. VenugoPal Sarda, Village', Age about: 2. Narasimha ReddY' years, Zaheerabad S/o. Srinivas Sarda, R/o. H'No'2-5-256, -$aqhgnnapet o"o ie"t", 2'aneeiioad' Mand al, Sangareddy Distri ct' S/o. Pratap Reddy, R/o. Kothur Village, Age about 55 Mandal, SahgareddY District. ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Department, Telanoana, represented by its Principal Secretary' MA and UD Secreiariat, HYderabad.

2. The Director, MA & UD, The State of Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad' 3. The superintendent of Police, sangareddy District, Telangana state' 4.Theg,y.SuperintendentofPolice,ZaheerabadDivision,SangaReddy District.

5. The Station House Officer, Zaheerabad Police Station,sanga Reddy District' 6.SriVi,robhaGoud,S/oLaxmiNarsaiahoqvgAggg.'about55years,.o9".. Business, n lo fiiti'fl"1qli2, iitf'-noot, LANCdHills, Manikonda, Hyderabad' 7. The Zlaheerabad, Municipality, Zaheerabad, Sanga Reddy District, Rep'by its Comrnissioner. ...RESPONDENTS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circgmstanc;es stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent No. 7 herein in not giling com,claint foi registering the FIR against the 6th respondent herein by Ionsi-dering the comptai-nt dated 03-02-2025 lodged by the petitioners herein for the serioul offences of obstructing municipal employees from performing their Ouiio ancl threatening 7th reipondent as highty illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia -principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 7th and also violative of respondent herein to give complaint against the 6th respondent and others and to provide police protection to the petitioners by considering the complaint dated O3- 02-2025lodged by the petitioners. lA NO: 1 otF 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 7th respondent herein to give complaint to the 5th respondent against the respondent No. 6 herein and others by providing police protection to the petitioners and staff of 7th respondent by considering the complaint dated o3lo2t2ozslodged by the petitioners, pending disposal of the writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PARAVASTU KRISHNA counselfor the Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counselfor the Respondent No'3 to 5: GP FOR HOME CounselfortheRespondentNo'6:SRIVIJAYB'PAROPAKARI counser for the Respondent No'7: t#,ir'=TirxBt-llllfiiFll'Ivsc FoR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HOI\{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT ONN 35295 0F 2024 and7917 oF 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 31.L2.2025 Between: Venugopal Sarada and others AND The State c,f Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. Petitioners Respondents COMM ORDER : (ORAL) ' As all these writ petitioners pertain to the same property, they are being dispr>sed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, and for the disposal of these writ petitions, the facts in W.P. No.34861 of 2024 are set out hereunder

3. Heard Mr. Paravasthu Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners (in W.P. Nos.34681 of 2024 &7917 of 2025 and respondents No.5 and 6 in w.P. No..16295 of 2025); Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel fc,r Zaheerabad Municipality, appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 II :! I,i I : I J ,i i! : I 2 (in W.P. No.34681 &. 36295 of 2024 and respondent No.7 in W.P. No.79l7 of 2025); Mr. Vrjay B. Paropakari, learned counsel for respondent No.4 (in W.P. No.36481 of 2024; petitioner in W.P. No.36295 of 2024; and respondent No.6 in W.P. No.7917 of 2025);and perused the material on record.

4. It is stated that respondent No.4 is the owner of the land admeasuring Acs.l2-00 guntas in Survey Nos.343/Al, 3431A, 343tEE and 343N, sitnated at Zaherabad Village and Municipality, Sanga Reddy District. The petitioners entered into development agreement with respondent No.4 vide registered development agreement-cum-general power of attorney (DAGPA) No.5470 of 2018 dated 02.06.2018 for developing the property. The case of the petitioners is that they have developed the property in all respects and completed all the works by investing their hard-earned money; they have paid Rs.15,00,0421- (Rupees fifteen lakhs foffy two only) to respondents No.2 and 3 towards layout charges. Under the DAGPA, the developers and owners have agreed to share the plotted area in the ratio of 60%o :40%. The ratio is to be followed after handing over the open space to an extent of Ac.l-21 guntas (10%) and Acs.3-957 cents (32.70o/o) of the roads to the Municipality by way of registered gift deed. As per the above requirement, the petitioners have already intimated respondent No.4 by notice dated 20.03.2023, however, there was no response from respondent 3 No.4. The petitioners requested respondents No.2 and 3 to receive/register the gift dr:ed by mortgaging Ac.l-21 guntas (10%) of area as per the DAGPA. As there was no response from respondents No.2 and 3, the petitioners were constrained to approach respondent No.l who issued Memo No.7029lPlc-1II12024 dated 30.05.2024 directing respondent No.2 to take immediate necessary action and thereafter, respondent No.2 issued instructions to the concerned officials to register the said gift deed. Accordingly, the petitioners executed the gift deed in favour of respondent No.2.

5. It isr submifted that white so, respondent No.4 attempted to cancel the gift deed with the help of some vested interested people in the office of respondents No.2 and 3 and attempting to cancel the DAGPA and is trying to sell th,e land which was developed by the petitioners in favour of prospective purchasers. As such, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court; seeking to declare the action of respondents No.2 and 3 in permitting to cancel the gift deed executed in favour of respondent No.2 as per the DAGPA No.5470 of 2018 dated 02.06.2018 as being illegal, arbitrary :md unconstitutional and consequently, to direct the respondent authoritieri not to cancel the gift deed of l0% of land mortgaged in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.l2-10 guntas 4 Survey Nos.343/Al, 3431A, 343lEE and 343N, situated at Zaherabad Village and Municipality, Sanga Reddy District.

6. W.P. No.36295 of 2024 is filed (by respondent No.4 in W.P. No.34681 of 2024) seeking to declare the action of respondents No.5 and 6 (petitioners in W.P. No.34681 of 2024) in seeking to enter upon the property on the basis of the alleged gift deed executed by respondents No.5 and 6 in favour of respondent No.2, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

7. W.P. No.79l7 of 2025 is filed (by the petitioners in W.P. No.34681 of 2024) seeking to declare the inaction of respondent No.7 in giving complaint for registering F.I.R. against respondent No.6 (respondent No.4 in W.P. No.34681 of 2024) for obstructing the municipal employees from performing their duties, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the developers of the property and respondent No.4 is a landlord. The petitioners are developing the property as per the DAGPA executed by respondent No.4 in their favour. [n terms of the DAGPA and the conditions of the tentative layout permission dated 26.06.2023, registered gift deed dated 21.11.2024 was executed by the petitioners in favour of respondent No.2; the DAGPA is still in force. The petitioners have invested crores of i i I I i ,l I ,t t x i I 5 rupees for developing the property. Respondent No'4 is insisting respondent No.2 to cencel the gift deed and further interfering and obstructing the oflicials of respondent No.2 in discharging their public duties' Thus, complaint/representation dated 03 -02.2025 . was submitted by the petitioners to respondent No.2 to register F.I.R. against respondent No'4 g. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the terms of the DAGPA have not been complied with by the petitioners' Respondent No'4 has not aul:horized the petitioners to execute the gift deed in lavour of respondent No.2 and gift deed if any to be executed could be by respondent No.4 only imd not by the petitioners. The tentative layout was sanctioned on 15.09.2Cr20, however, the conditions of the layout have not been fulfilled and'the proliect was not registered under the Telangana Real Estate (Rules and Devekrpment) Rules, 2Ol7 x required in condition No'23 of the tentative layout dated 15.09.2020. That without complying with the terms of the DAC,PA and the conditions of the tentative layout permission, the gift deed was executed which is illegal and cannot be acted upon' In the guise of the gift deed, the potitioners and respondent No.2 are trying to interfere with the possession of respondent No.4 in respect of the property'

10. Learned Standing Counsel for Zaheerabad Municipality submitted that the di:ipute between the petitioners (developers) and respondent No.4 ;l 6 :.r\ (owner) has to be decided by the competent civil court or an appropriate authority and it is not for the Municipality to enter upon such dispute. As per the conditions of the tentative layout permission; the gift deed was executed by the petitioners and the same cannol be questioned in a writ petition. There is no illegality on the part of respondent No.2 in accepting the gift deed. ll. It is the case of respondent No.4 that the DAGPA do not authorize the petitioners to execute the gift deed and the possession of the property was not delivered to them. [t is not in dispute that the gift deed has been executed by the petitioners and accepted by respondent No.2 pursuant to the tentative layout peimission dated 15.09.2020. If the conditions mentioned therein have not been fulfilled, it is needless to say, the final layout will not be released. The contents of the gift deed show that as per the DTCP layout dated 30.09.2020, the internal roads and open space shall be handed over to the Commissioner, zaheerabad Municipality-respondent No.2; respondent No.2 addressed letters to the petitioners vide letters dated 06.03.2023 with a direction to remit the fee for release of the confirmed technical layout pattern (TLP) after complying with all the conditions mentioned in rhe TLP; respondent No.2 has directed the petitioners vide letters dated 25.05.2023 and' 26.06.2023 to handover the open space to an extent of Ac.l-21 guntas (10%) road area and Acs.3-957 cents (32.70o/o) ro rhe Municipality by way 7 of registered gift deed; accordingly, the developers intended to gift the open space. The schedule of the property in the gift deed indicates that open place area (park) of 5856.40 square yards and road area of 19118 square yards, total ilrea of 27,974.40 square yards in Survey Nos.343/AA , 343lEE, 343/U and 343lAL, situated at Zaheerabad Town and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District has been transferred by the petitioners to respondent No.2. L2. As sr:en from the above factual backdrop, the dispute between the petitioners ernd respondent No.4 essentially is regarding the performance of the terms and conditions of the DAGPA and tentative layout permission. According to the learned counsel for respondent No.4 the DAGPA does not authorize ttre petitioners to execute the gift deed in favour of respondent No.2 for opren space and roads. However, the gift deed dated 2l.l,l-2024 has been accepted by respondent No.2 allegedly in terms of the tentative layout perrnission. It is further contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the physical possession of the property has not been delivered to the petitioners and the property was entrusted for development o[ land into residential plots. It is settled principle of law a Court exercising writ jurisdi,;tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia cannot enter upon the disputed questions of fact and interpretation of terms of contract. While it is the contention of the petitioners that they have developed the property as per the layout and transferred the open space and road area to -GF _- _ 1', 8 respondent No.2 by way of gift deed, it is the contention of respondent No.4 that the property was not developed. This is purely a question of fact. Further, under the DAGPA, whether physical possession of the property has been delivered by respondent No.4 to the petitioners and authorization was given to the petitioners to execute the gift deed are also disputed questions of fact which have to be decided by a competent civil Court or appropriate authority by interpreting the terms and conditions of the DAGPA and tentative layout permission. It is not within the jurisdiction of a writ Court to decide such issues.

13. with the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. Howevet, having regard to the rival claims regarding performance and non-performance of contract under the DAGPA, and in the interests of justice, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the property in all respects for a period of forty five (45) days from today so as to enable the parties as the case may be to institute civil suit and seek for appropriate relief from a competent civil Court/ Forum. It is made clear if any civil suit is f,rled, the concemed Court shall pass orders/judgment in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 9 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ pt:tition, stand closed. sd/-sD/- S. MALLIKARJU NA RAO STRAR ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY/ OFFICER To

3. D eoa,rm e nr,'T"h;"bi;; olier ania;;; T. s. s ecr.eta riat. H vd erabad l.TheFrincipalSecretarv$gnlcinalAdministration.andUrbanDevelopment 2. Tha c)ommissioner, The zaneerA}fr'rtnlii.Iiiiitv, 2in"tn"bad' sanga Reddv off icer, Zaheeabad M uni ci pality Zaheerabad' San ga Distrir:t The l'own Planning Reddy district The fitation House The Director, Town The Director, MA & The The District. Officer, Police & Cou The of Police,

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. e. One CC to SRI PARAVASTV IIEISINA' Advocate [OPUC] 10.one cc to snr p0rTA',t"RisFiNA neriov, sc for ZAHEERABAD ' -' ttlUr.tCtPAL|TY IOPUCI 11.one cC to snr riilnV"ri 12. Two CCs to cp 'i6R'M'0*iCrpnr noivrirutsrnnrl.N & URBAN .',*y="'":iyEulsati.'snglil,rB3l*?"?',13'3H311+?':ll.^,rourr 14.Two CD CoPies "lngiAKARl' Advocate [OPUC] BN SA /; 2 A HIGH COURT DATED i3111212025 t{t E 5TA (-I 1 3 l{AR 2028 * i.,- , COMMON ORDER WP.Noti.34681, 36295 of 2024 & 7917 of 2025 DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT T'ETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS J<s rcf zf't