Telangana High Court
Paluri Ravi Shankar vs The Subregistrar on 3 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.834 of 2022, 270 of 2023 and WRIT
PETITION No.36324 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri Sheri Prasad, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants in W.A.No.834 of 2022, Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy,
learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana, appearing for
Ms.D.Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad
Metropolitan Development Authority, appearing for the appellant
in W.A.No.270 of 2023, respondent No.4 in W.A.No.834 of 2022
and respondent No.1 in WP.No.36324 of 2021,
Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Sri Rusheek Reddy K.V., learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 in W.A.No.270 of 2023 and Sri A.Venkatesh, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K.Prithvi Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.36324 of 2021.
2. On the joint request, the matters being connected
analogously heard and decided by this common order.
3. W.A.No.270 of 2023 and W.A.No.834 of 2022 assail the
common order of learned Single Judge passed in I.A.Nos.1 and
2 of 2022 in/and WP.No.36909 of 2021 on 30.11.2022.
4. W.A.No.270 of 2023 is filed by the Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority (H.M.D.A.) by contending that the learned
Single Judge was not justified in allowing W.P.No.36909 of 2021.
5. W.A.No.834 of 2022 is filed by those appellants, who filed
implead petitions viz.,I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 before the learned
Single Judge and the learned Single Judge in para No.17 of the
impugned order permitted them to avail other remedy available
to them, while dismissing the I.As.
Factual back ground:
6. The admitted facts before the Writ Court were that the
H.M.D.A and respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.A.No.270 of 2023
entered into a 'Development Agreement' on 28.01.2008. As per
this agreement, respondent Nos.1 to 3 were required to pay
"Development Premium amount" in certain stages. The relevant
portion of the Development Agreement reads thus:
Sl.No. Payment Milestone Amount in
Rs.Crores
1. Simultaneous with signing 25.0
of Development Agreement.
2. Within one (1) calendar 25.0
month from the Developer
receiving written approvals
from HUDA for this DPR
3. Within one (1) calendar 25.0
month from the Developer
achieving the Financial
Closure for the Project.
4. Within one (1) calendar 25.0
month from the Zero Date.
7. Indisputedly, respondent Nos.1 to 3 only paid first stage
amount of Rs.25.00 crores to H.M.D.A. and did not make the
payment of remaining three installments in total Rs.75 crores.
8. The H.M.D.A. by communication dated 05.11.2021
requested the Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps
and Registration Department, Hyderabad, to take appropriate
action to save the Government money. In this communication,
it was also informed that the contract of respondent Nos.1 to 3
stood terminated by notice dated 30.08.2021.
9. Upon receiving the aforesaid communication from
H.M.D.A., the office of Commissioner and Inspector General of
Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad by communication dated
09.11.2021 informed the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy
District, to take necessary action for protecting the government
interest in properties. The communication dated 30.08.2021
became subject matter of the challenge before the Writ Court.
10. The sheet-anchor of the argument of learned counsel
for the petitioner before the Writ Court was
that the only enabling provision under The Indian Registration
Act, 1908 (for short "the Act") is Section
22-A which deals with prohibition of registration of certain
documents. The reason on the strength of which the impugned
order was passed does not fall within the ambit of Section 22-A.
11. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition for the
reason that communication of H.M.D.A. dated 05.11.2021
became foundation for not registering the properties is outside
the ambit and scope of Section 22-A of the Act. Aggrieved,
W.A.No.270 of 2023 is filed by H.M.D.A.
12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to
3 in W.A.No.270 of 2023 at the outset submits that respondent
Nos.1 to 3 are ready to pay remaining Rs.75 crores within thirty
days from today and a written undertaking is provided to the
Court to that effect and a copy of cheque No.240483,
dated 04.04.2025, for the said amount is also enclosed
therewith.
13. Learned Advocate General fairly submits that only
short coming of non-payment of Rs.75 crores which became
reason for non-registration is now over and therefore, he has no
objection if the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is
not interfered with and secondly, the cancellation of contract
which became the subject matter of challenge in WP.No.36324
of 2021 can be interfered with.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.834 of 2022
submits that the question of title and other civil disputes are
involved and therefore, the order of learned Single Judge is not
correct whereby he did not allow the implead petitions and
instead permitted the present appellants to avail other
remedies.
15. No other point is pressed by the parties.
16. We have heard the parties.
17. So far W.A.No.834 of 2022 is concerned, it is arising out of
para No.17 of the impugned order of learned Single Judge,
whereby his applications for impleadment was not entertained.
18. It is noteworthy that lis before the learned Single Judge
was limited to the singular question whether for
non-payment of Rs.75 crores and on the strength of
communication dated 05.11.2021 of H.M.D.A., the Inspector
General of Registration was justified in issuing the
communication dated 09.11.2021 and whether such
communication can be reason to invoke power under Section
22-A of the Act.
19. The question of title and other civil disputes etc., were not
the subject matter of writ petition. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge has not allowed the implead applications and permitted
the implead petitioners to avail other remedy available to them
under the Law. No fault can be found in the impugned order of
the learned Single Judge. In other words, in view of the
Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in
Moninder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner 1, the
validity of an order or an action must be judged on the basis of
the reasons mentioned therein. The same cannot be improved
by filing a counter affidavit in the Court. Admittedly, before the
learned Single Judge, the singular reason for not undertaking
the exercise of registration was non-payment of Rs.75 crores by
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the communication of the H.M.D.A.
dated 05.11.2021, which became the singular reason for
issuance of impugned communication dated 09.11.2021.
The lis before the learned Single Judge was not related to any
title/civil dispute. Hence, the learned Single Judge has confined
(1978) 1 SCC 405
himself to the question of non-registration and permitted the
appellants to avail remedies available to them.
20. As noticed above, the offer and undertaking of paying Rs.75
crores by respondent Nos.1 to 3 is duly accepted by the H.M.D.A.
Thus, as agreed, the singular reason for non-registration does not
survive and therefore, inaction of registration was rightly
interfered with.
21. In W.P.No.36324 of 2021, the cancellation of the contract is
subject matter of challenge and admittedly, singular reason for
such cancellation was also non-payment of Rs.75 crores.
In view of the aforesaid undertaking and upon showing
satisfaction by the learned Advocate General appearing for
H.M.D.A., as agreed we deem it proper to set aside the impugned
notice dated 30.08.2021 in W.P.No.36324 of 2021.
22. In view of the forgoing discussion, the Writ Appeal Nos.270
of 2023 and 834 of 2022 are dismissed. The question regarding
the ambit and scope of Section 22-A of the Act will remain open to
be decided in an appropriate case. However, it is made clear that
the appellants in W.A.No.834 of 2022 can avail all the possible
remedies available to them regarding grievances highlighted before
the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition No.36342 of 2021 is allowed
and the impugned notice dated 30.08.2021 is set side. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
03.03.2025
Nvl
