Telangana High Court
Telangana State Housing Board vs T. Bhajrang on 12 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1241 OF 2025
Mr. Chittam Buchi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Mr. K. Siddharth Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 29.04.2025
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition
No.19768 of 2010.
2. The respondent No.1 herein filed the Writ Petition seeking a
mandamus against the action of the Government of Telangana (the
respondent No.2 herein) and the Telangana State Housing Board
(the appellant herein) in not alienating/registering the land,
measuring 48.33 square yards situated adjacent to Block No.7, Pay
and Accounts Office, Mukarram Jahi Road, Hyderabad. The
respondent No.1 also sought a direction to the appellant/Housing
Board to register/transfer the said land in favour of the respondent
No.1/writ petitioner.
3. By the impugned order dated 29.04.2025, the learned Single
Judge disposed of the Writ Petition and directed the
appellant/Housing Board to execute a registered Sale Deed in
favour of the writ petitioner with regard to the subject property
within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the
impugned order.
4. The primary contention of learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Housing Board is that the Writ Petition represents a
third round of litigation between the parties regarding the
registration of the subject land in favour of the respondent
No.1/writ petitioner. Counsel submits that by an order dated
29.09.2008 in W.P.No.26839 of 1996, a learned Single Judge (as
His Lordship then was) directed the appellant/Housing Board to
alienate/register the land in favour of the writ petitioner subject to
the writ petitioner paying the market value at the rate of
Rs.10,000/- per square yard as determined by the Housing Board,
along with the encroachment fee for the period between December,
1994 to November, 1995 at the rate of Rs.6267.37 ps per month
and Rs.150/- and Rs.50/- towards preparation of the registration
plans and conveyance charges, respectively, to the
appellant/Housing Board on or before 31.10.2008.
5. Counsel further submits that contrary to direction, the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner made the payment on 29.01.2009.
It is also submitted that by an order dated 02.12.2009 in
Contempt Proceedings (C.C (SR) No.4440 of 2009) initiated by the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner, the Court reiterated that there
may not have been any contempt on the part of the
appellant/Housing Board since the writ petitioner paid the amount
beyond the time limit as directed by the Court. Counsel further
submits that the writ petitioner has been squatting on the land
which cannot be sold.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant places the
relevant orders passed in the earlier proceedings between the
parties.
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Housing Board and the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.
8. It is undisputed that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner
paid an amount of Rs.5,68,708.44 ps. to the appellant/Housing
Board on 29.01.2009, pursuant to the order dated 29.09.2008. It
is also undisputed that the appellant appropriated the said
amount without raising any objection to the payment being made
beyond the time limit set by the Court.
9. Notably, the appellant/Housing Board could not have raised
any objection since the appellant had, by its own letter dated
31.12.2008 addressed to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner,
extended the time limit by one month from the date of the said
letter. The letter dated 31.12.2008 is on record.
10. Further, although the appellant/Housing Board relies on the
order dated 02.12.2009 passed in C.C (SR) No.4440 of 2009, the
relevant portion of the order reflects that the appellant/Housing
Board was directed to comply with the order dated 29.09.2008
passed in W.P.No.26839 of 1996 with regard to the registration of
the property in favour of the writ petitioner within 30 days from the
date of receipt of copy of the order dated 02.12.2009.
11. Counsel appearing for the appellant has not been able to
show any steps taken in compliance of the directions issued by the
Court in the order dated 02.12.2009. The inaction on the part of
the appellant led the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to file the
Writ Petition in 2010, culminating in the impugned order dated
29.04.2025. The learned Single Judge recorded that the
appellant/Housing Board had extended the time for payment of
Rs.4,68,708.44 ps. and hence found the excuse taken by the
appellant to be without basis. The learned Single Judge also noted
that the appellant had appropriated the amount as stated before +
Rs.1,00,000/- which was previously paid by the respondent
No.1/writ petitioner to the appellant/Housing Board.
12. We therefore do not find any error in the impugned order.
What however we do find is the complete dereliction of duty on the
part of the appellant in complying with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge, despite the appellant/Housing Board
appropriating the money paid by the respondent No.1/writ
petitioner on 29.01.2009. The Appeal is, therefore, without merit
and appears to have been filed only to procrastinate and prolong
the litigation. The Appeal deserves be dismissed with costs.
13. W.A.No.1241 of 2025, along with all connected applications,
is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand Only) which shall be paid by the appellant to the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner within two weeks from
17.11.2025.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_____________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date: 12.11.2025
va
