Sandhya Hotels Private Limited (Formerly known as Sandhya Constructions v. 1. The State of Telangana

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, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent in selling an extent of 1210 sq.Yds as a Stray Bit in Lot No.'10, situated in Sy.No.124 and 125 (described as Sy.No.26) Kancha Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of the 3rd Respondent vide confirmation-cum-allotment letter daled O110512O23, including the road of 30 feet situated on the Southern side of Plot No.8, belonging to the Petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the same and to direct the 2nd Respondent to leave the road of 30 feet situated on the Southern Side of the Plot No.8, of the Petitioner, while disposing of the stray bit at any point of time in future. 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 3rd Respondent herein not to take possession of the land admeasuring '1210 sq.Yds in Lot No.10 in Sy.No.124 & '125 (described as Sy.No.26). kacha Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 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 2nd Respondent not to execute Sale Deed in favour of the 3rd Respondent in respect of the land admeasuring 1 210 sq.Yds in Lot No.10 in Sy.No.124 & 125 (described as Sy.No.26). kacha Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District, auctioned vide confirmation-aim-allotment letter No.52l EMU/HMDA/Stray Bits-ll/ Lol No.1Ol 222, dated 01-05-2023, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.S. PRASAD, REPRESENTING M/S. A SATYASIRI Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR GHMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.3:-- The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER t HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K LAKSHMAN WRIT PET ITION Nos.3664 6 AND 36415 0F 2024 CO MMON ORI)ER: Heard Mr. M.S. prasad, Ieamed Senior Counsel representing Ms. A. Satyasiri, Ieamed counsel for the petitioner, leamed Assistant Govemment pleader for MA & UD appearing on behalf of respondent No.l and Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, leamed Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing on behalf ofrespondent No.2.

2. W.p. No.36646 of 2024 is filed by Mr. S. Muralidhar, Managing Director of IWs. Sandhya Hotels privare Limited, seeking, ......to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action ofthe 2nd Respondent in se ing an extent of 12l0 Sq. yds as a Stray Bit in Lor No. 10, situated in Sy.No. t 24 & 125 (describcd as Sy.No.26) Kancha Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of the 3rd Respondent vide confirmation_cum- allotment letter dated 0l_05-2023, inctuding the road of 30 feet situared on the Nonhem side of plot No.4 and Southem side of plot No.7 betonging to the Petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the same and to direct the 2nd Respondent to leave the road of 30 leet situated on the Northem side of plot No.4 and Southem side of plot No.7 of the petitioner. 2 KL,J WP No 1ffi6 & lgl5 of 2024 rvhile disposing of the stray bit at any point of time in lulure

3. Whereas. W.P. No'36415 of 2024 is fited by IWs' Sandhya Hotels Private Limited, represented by its Managing l)irector' Mr' S' *. Muralidhar-thcpetitionerintheformerwritpetition'seeking' . . to issue a Writ, Order or Direction' more particularly. one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus' to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent in selling an extent of 1210 sq. Yds as a Stray Bit in Lot No'10' situated in Sy.No l24 & 125 (described as Sy No'26) Kancha Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District' in favour of thc 3rd Respondent vide confirmation-cum- allotment letter dated 0t-05-2023, including the road of 30 l'cet situated on the Southem side of Plot No 8' bctonging to the Petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the same and to direct the 2nd Respondent to leave the road of 30 feet situated on thc Southem Side of the Plot No'8' of the Petitioner' w'hile disposing of the stray bit at any point of time in future. . . ."

4. Lis involved in both the writ petitions and the parties thereto are onc and the same and, therefore, both the writ pctitions were heard togethcr and are being disposed ofby way of this common order' o 3 KL.J wP No 1af46 & 164 I 5 ot 2024 / 5 CONTENTI ONS OF THE PETITIONER: i) The petitioner in W.P. No.36646 of 2024 is the absolute owner of Plot Nos.4 and 7, admeasurin g 573.14 and 522 square yards' respectively, in Survey Nos.l24 and 125, forming part of Layout of the Fertilizer Corporation of India Employees Co-Op' Housing Society Limited ('FCIECOHSL Layout'), sit'uated at Gachibowli Village' Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District, under registered sale deedsbearingdocumentNos.l5l38andl5T03of2024,bothdated I 7 .08.2024, respectivelY. iD Whereas, the petitioner in WP' No'36415 of 2024 is the absolute owner of semi-finished residential building consists of Stilt + Four Floors with a total built up area of 12,705 square flcet, constructed on Plot No.8, admeasuring 498 square yards, situated at the very same Layout, under a registered sale deed bearing document No'661 ol'2024' dated09.01.2024.|tisrelevanttonotethattheVendorofthepetitioner obtainedbuildingpermitorderdated04.08.2022andtherealter constructed the aforesaid building. iii) Even Plot Nos.7 and 8 were got regularized by the GHMC Officials under Layout Regularization Scheme, vide proceedings dated

04.08.2011 and 07.03.2009 respectively, whereas Plot No'4 was l/ 4 KL.J U' P. No 166"16 & 3& l5 of202a regularizcd by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, I lyderabad, uide proceedings dated I 5. I I .2007. iv) Both Plot Nos.4 and 7 have 30 feet road on northem side of I'lot No.4 and Southern side of Plot No.7 as is evident in the aforesaid sale deeds as well as the Layout. On the westem side ofthe subject Plot, after Plot No.7. there is a 120 feet wide road known as DLF Road and the said 30 f-eet road connects the plots with the DLF Road. This is the only access to both the plots from the beginning' Even Plot No.8 is having 30 lcct road on its southern side. In the plan enclosed to the building permission granted by the GHMC Authorities, the said road is v) While the matter stood thus, respondent No.2 - HMDA sold an extent of I 2 I 0 square yards of land by way of e-auction as Lot No. l0 in Survey Nos.l24 and 125 (described as Survey No.26) of Kancha (iachibowli. Rangareddy District, and respondent No.3 was the successful bidder in respect of the same for an amount of Rs.24,80.50,0001- vide letter dated 01.05.2023. However, the aforesaid 30 leet road has been included in the said extent of 1210 square vards. vi) Despite bringing the lact that the said road is the only access to the petitioner plots and lhc same is being used as a public road for 5 KL.I wP No lrt646 & 16415 o12024 several decades, to the notice of respondent No.2, it did not respond. Now, respondent No.3 is attempting to take over the possession of Lot No. l0 in Survey No.26 without handing over the same to him by respondent No.2. Therefore, the petitioner fiIed the present writ petitions

6. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.2 - HMDA: i) Urban Land Ceiling Act has no relevance to the layout in which one ofthe plots is said to have regularized ii) The petitioner has not made the GHMC as party to the present wnt petltlons iii) The petitioner's plots do not have any approach road since the auctioned land parcel is a Govemment land iv) Pursuant to the proposals received from the District Collector, Rangareddy District, HMDA issued notification on 06.02.2023 for sale of Straybit/land ln Survey No.26, admeasuring l2l0 square yards. situated at Kancha - Gachibowli Village and conducted e-auction on

01.03.2023. Respondent No.3 stood as successful bidder for a total sale consideration of Rs.24,80,50,000/- by remining Rs.5.00 lakhs as EMD fi.e! El' t* 6 KL,J w.P No 36646 & 36415 of2024 Respondent No.3 also paid an amount ol Rs'20'88'72'4051- md balance to be paid is Rs.3,91,77,5951 v) Thc aforesaid straybit/land parcel is purely Govemment land situated in Survel No 26 of Kancha-Gachibowli Village' vi) The plots of the petitioner form part of private land and the aforesaid layout and thev are not way related to Survey No'26 as it is a Govcmmentland..l.hereisnoroadexistingintheauctioned[and..The said land is under the custody of Revenue Department and they will hand over the physical possession of auctioned lands to the successful bidder on payment of total sale consideration amount and will also execute sale deed. vii) 1.he petitioner has an effective altemative remedy of approaching Civil Court against his/its vendor but he/it cannot ventilate his/its grievance under A(icle - 226 of the Constitution of India' viii) With the atbresaid submissions' HMDA sought to dismiss both the writ Petltlons 7 ANALY SIS AN D FINDING OF THE COURT: i) In view of the aloresaid rival submissions' it is the contentlon o*. tlg petitioner that thcy are the absolute owners of the subject plots having purchasetl undcr the afbresaid sale deeds from hisiits vendor' l. 7 KL.J w P No 165.46 & 16415 of:024 They are in Survey Nos.l24 and 125 forming part of FCIECOT{SL Layout, situated at Gachibowli Village. 30 feet road connects to the subject plots from 120 feet DLF Road. In the e-auction conducted by respondent No.2, respondent No.3 participated and he became successful bidder in respect of stray bit i.e. Lot No.l0, admeasuring l2l0 square yards. But, the said 30 feet road is included in the said extent of l2l0 square yards and thereby obstructing the access to the subject plots ii) Whereas, it is contended by the HMDA that the stray biVlot No.10 is located in Survey No.26, which is a Government land. M road is in existence in the said land. Therefore, the question of inclusion of 30 feet road in 1210 square yards of land and thereby obstructing the petitioner to r.each his plots does not arise. iii) Insofar as Plot No.8 is concemed, perusal of copy ol sale deed bearing document No.66l of 2024, dated 09.01.2024 under which the petitioner purchased Plot No.8 from his Vendor, Mr. Konidena Koteswara Rao, would disclose that in the schedule on southem side, 25 feet wide public road is mentioned. Subsequently, the petitioner and his Vendog Mr. Konidena Koteswara Rao executed a Deed of Exchange vide document No. 10695 of 2017 , dated 2l .09.2017 . By virtue of the said exchange deed, the said Plot No.8 was transferred in favour of Mr. 8 KI.J W P No 3696 & 16415 of2024 Konidena Koteswara Rao. who in tum transferred Plot No.104 in favour of IWs. Sandhya Hotels Private Limited. In the said deed of exchange, southem sidc boundarv of plot No.104 is mentioned as '30 feet wide road'. The link document i.c., sale deed bearing document No.6847 of 198 l, dated 07.1 1 .198 I in respect of Plot No.8, southem side boundary is mentioned as '25 feet widc road'. Even in the sale deed bearing document No.4453 of l98l under which FCIECOHSL had purchased an extent olAcs.20.00 guntas in Survey Nso.l24 and 125 from the original pattadars, southem boundary is mentioned as 'Main Road from Hyderabad to L.ingampally Village. iv) Insofar as Plot Nos.4 and 7 are concerned, in the sale deed bearing document No. I 5138 of 2024,dated 07.08.2024, under which the petitioner purchased I'lot No.4, westem side boundary is mentioned as '120 feet wide road' and northem boundary is mentioned as'33 feet vvide road', rvhereas in the sale deed bearing document No.15703 of

2024. dated 17.08.2024, under which, plot No.7 was purchased, westem side boundary is mentioned as '100 feet wide road' and southem side boundary is mentioned as '33 feet wide road'- v) Basing on the aforesaid sale deeds, it is contended by the pEir{ioner that there cxists 100 f'eet wide road and 30 f'eet wide road to 9 KI,J W P No 36&6 & 16415 of2021 the subject plots connecting fiom 120 feet wide DLF Road, whereas it is contended by respondent No.2 that there is no road in existence as Survey No.26 is a Govemment land and the straybit/land admeasuring l2l0 square yards allotted to respondent No.3 is situated in Survey No.26. In view of the above, it is clear that there is a dispute with regard to identification of properry. vi) The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that there are the followlng factual aspects: a) According to the petitioners, their plots are in Survey Nos.l24.and 125 of Gachibowli Village. b) According to respondent No.2, the land auctioned by it is in Survey No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli Village. c) To the northem side of Plot No.4 and southern side of Plot No.7, there is 33 feet road, while on westem side of Plot No.4, 120 ieet wide road and on the westem side of Plot No.7, there is 100 feet wide road, which are evident from registered sale deeds as well as layout. d) 100 feet and 30 feet wide roads to the subject plots connects from 120 feel wide road known as DLF Road. ;E:. tt< . x&hl r"lr t0 KL.J WP No 16g6 & 36415 of2024 e) 'lhc aforesaid roads are only access to both the plots from the DLF Road. fl I'lot No.8 is having 30 feet wide road on its southern side. g) I'he petitioner is placing reliance on the building permit order granted by the GHMC Authorities. h) According to respondcnt No.2, the land in Survey No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli Village is Govemment Land. i) Respondent No.2 received proposals from the District Collector, Rangareddy District. I'herefore, it has issued auction notice dated t)6.02.2023 fbr conducting sale of straybit/land admeasuring 12l0 square yards. vii) Thc writ Cou( has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of tact and there is no absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact as held by the Hon'bte Supreme Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.t. viii) When a w'rit petition involves disputed questions of fact and law, the High Clourt would be slow in entertaining the petition under A(icle - 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is a rule of r. (2004) .r s( c 551 K-L.J WP No.J6546 &. 1U t 5 of 2024 self-restraint and not a hard and fast rule as held by the Apex Court in Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra2. The said principle was also followed by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Agni Aviation Consultants v. State of Telangana3. ix) As discussed above, in the present case, there are serious/complicated questions of fact. This Court cannot consider the same in a writ petition filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. The dispute is with regard to identification of property. According to the petitioner, the subject plots are in Survey Nos.l24 and 125 of Gachibowli Village, whereas according to respondent No.2, the property sold by it pursuant to the e-auction notice dated 06.02.2023 admeasuring l2l0 square yards is in Survey No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli village. Boundaries given in the said sale deeds, layout and building permit order accorded by the GHMC Authorities, existence of public roads etc., this Court cannot consider and adjudicate in a writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has to approach competent Civil Court and establish its right. The petitioner cannot seek to adjudication of serious disputed,/complicated questions of fact in the present writ petitions. The - 2020 SCC Online SC 291 . 2020 SCC OnLine TS t462 !; t2 KI,J wP No 36646 & 3641 5 of 2024 said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in State of U'P' v' Ehsana. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain present writ petitions on the aforesaid grounds. x) It is also apt to note that Mr. M.S. Prasad, leamed Senior Counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioner, would contend that the Govemmenl has to fi le counter to show that the land auctioned by respondent No.2 is in Survey No.26 and it is a govemment land' But, the petitioner did not array the District Collector, Rangareddy District and the Tahsildar concemed as party to the present writ petitions' They have made HMDA and the Principal Secretary, MA & UD as parties to the present rvrit petitions. Therefore, the petitioner cannot expect a counter from respondent Nos.l and 2 with regard to the aforesaid aspects. In fact. the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed only on the said ground of non-joinder of proper parties i.e., the District Collector. Rangareddy District and the Tahsildar concemed. xi) It is also relevant to note that Mr. M.S. Prasad, leamed Senior Counsel. contended that respondent No.3 has not paid the bid amount within the timelines mentioned in the e-auction notice- Therefore, the Tuedon has to bc cancelled. He has also placed reliance on the decision I

4. 2023 Livct.aw (SC) 8{37 l3 KI,,J wP No 36&6 & 3g l5 of2024 in Shyam Trading Co., Secunderabad v. M. Krishnas. As discussed above, the auction amount is fu.24,80,50,000/-. Respondent No.3 had paid an amount of Rs.20,88,72 ,4051- and balance to be paid ts Rs.3,9l ,77,595/-. Therefore, it is for respondent No.2 to consider the said aspects. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the same. xii) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner failed to make out any case. Therefore, both the writ petitions fail and the same are liable to be dismissed

8. CONCLUSION: Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach competent Civil Court. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both the writ petitions shall stand cloqed. s[,tottt LD.tn q7- SD/.P. PADMANABHA ASSTSTANT REGI DY RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFIC ER One CC to M/s. A. Satyasiri Advocate to?Uql Two CCs to GP for r,r,n'"'pt?ii"'iiii"tt"'iio-n'tl'ban Development' High Court bl y#13'3 :,'J "l*::1ru'*l,t 3B"'1 1?"Boro " "r Two CD CoPies To, 1 2

3. 4. TJ BS HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 910212025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.36646 and 36415 ot 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS l YIE STAT s Kof. l rEB zffi f ) ( J c t+ )D