Dismissed

M/s Fortune Builders v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jan 2023WP/45564/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed two writ petitions challenging the e-auction of government land. The court held the petitioner failed to establish a legally enforceable right to stall the auction without proving irregularity, noting they cannot seek sale as a matter of right.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions W.P. Nos. 55 of 2023 and 45564 of 2022 are dismissed. No order as to costs.

M/s Fortune Builders Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ |

¶2

I{IGII COURI' FOIT'I'TIE S'IATE OF TELANGANA A'T HYDERABAD

¶3

(Spccial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY. THE THIRI) DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

:PRESENT:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITI ON NO: 55 OF 202 3 AND 45564 0F 2022

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.55 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

lvlls Fortune Builders, Being Rep by its Managing partner, Aflu Govinda Reddy s/o Allu veera Reddy office situated at pavani Encore, 3rd Floor Nanakamguda Toll Plaza, Puppalguda, Hyderabad , 500089.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

l. The state of Telangana, Represented by its principal secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶14

The Chief Commissioner, Land Revenue and Administration (CCLA), Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶15

HMDA Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep by Commissioner, Swamanjali Complex Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India pralng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court mayle pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particulaily one in the natuie of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondeni No. 2 ,nd 4 fo. issuing notification for the e-auction as nonest for the locked government land to an extent of .{c. 01-31 Gts in suwey No 144 situated at Kokapet viflage, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without passing any orders on petitioners representations d,ated, lTlog/zo2z,2bno/2022 and' 14/1112022 by respondent No 2 as illegal, arbitrary contrary to Board Standing orders B.S.o 15 (22) and, consequently direct the respondent No. 4 not to conduct e- auction to an extent of Ac- 0l -3 I Gts in survey No 144 situated at Kokapet village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ar serial No 9 in Ranga Reddy District"in notification dated 21/ 12/2022.

¶18

IA NO: I OF 2023

¶19

Petition und'dr section 15i cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the e- auction conducted by respondent No.4 on lg/ol/zoz3 to an extent of ac. 01-3i Gts in survey No 144 situated at Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. J P SRIKAI\TH

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 3: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶22

counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRr Y RAMA RAo (Standing Counsel for HMDA)

¶23

¶24

IVRIT PIITI lll )\ ( t: 15564^()b- 2022

¶25

BshYccn:

¶26

NI/s Itrlt rnc []t iltlers, Being Rep by its Managing Pa:tncr Allr Gr r indr Rcddy S,to r\llu Vccra llcr dl C)fllce Sinrated ar Pavani Encore.^trd Fk o lNanakranrguda Toll ['laza. ['u ppllqL J:r, tlyderabad, 5000E9.

¶27

Pctitioner

¶28

.4.N D

¶29

Thc Statc ol' It:r rngana, Represented by its Principal Seiretary, H evenuc Depa(mcnt, Sccretarilrt I:|.ril, Lil g, Hydcrabad.

¶30

l'hc Distr ;.;t^('(' le(;tor, Ranga Reddy, Ranga Reddy Disrrict,^'f,:llrngr ra.

¶31

2 l'hc Distr ;.;t^('(' le(;tor, Ranga Reddy, Ranga Reddy Disrrict,^'f,:llrngr ra. 3 The Chie^'('r'rnr rir;sioner Land Revenue and Administration t.( ( L.{). Nanrpally, Hydcllbari.

¶32

...Respondents

¶33

Pctition undcr Arlicle 226 of the Constitution ol India praying that in the circumstances statctl i r the affidavit filed therewith, the High Co.rrl mi.y bc plcased to issue a writ orrler o ,lirection rnore particularly one in the nr:tuft of WRIT OF MANDAMUS dccliLnr g thc action of the respondent No. 2 rn not pi:ssirg anl orrlers on the petitioners rcpres( ntation dated 1710812O22, 2011012022 and l4llll2O22 scekin! requesting to scll thc r,o/ernment land at market value to an exterrt of ,,\c. 0l-31 gts in survey No 144 situirto I irt Kokapel Village, Gandipet Manrlal, Ranga Reddy District to existing markct valuc a I illegal, arbitrary contrary to Board Standin5 (.,rdcs B.S_O l5 (22) and consequcntlv drrcr t lhc respondent No. 2 to consider the pct tioners representation dated 1,71081202'.1,20r 012022 and 1411112022 and allot the governnrcnr land at market value to petitioncr envi ra 3ed in lloard Standing Orders B.S.C, l5 (2 2). to rn extent of Ac. 01-3 I gts in suncy Nc 144 situated at Kokapet Village, Gardipet v[:tndrl. Ranga Reddy District;

¶34

IA NO: I OF 2022

¶35

, Petition under le(ition l-51 CPC praying that in the circunrslanc:s stated in the affidavit filed in suppr rl 01'the petition, the High Court may be pleasi:d to direct the respondent No. 2 to co rsider the petitioners representation dtted li/0312(t22,2OllO/2O22 all'd 14lll/2022 anLl all rt the government land at market vahLe to p3titioner envisaged in Board Standing^(frders B.S.O 15 (22), to an extent of Ac.01-31 ;tr in survey No 144 situated at Kokapct Yill rge, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶36

Counsel for thc Pctitior er': SRI. J P SRIKANTH

¶37

Counsel for the Respor dcnt Nos. I to 3: SRI HARENDER PH,RSIL\I.r LEARNED

¶38

SPECIAL GOV[]RNN' ENT PLEADER

¶39

The Court madc thc frr. lowing: ORDER

¶40

I I I I I

¶41

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.55 oF 2o23 AND 45564 0F 2022

¶42

COMMON ORDER:

¶43

l. W.p.No.45564 of 2022 is filed by rhe petitioner to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not passing orders on the representation dabd 17.09.2022, ZO.-O.2O22 and 14.11.2022 submitted by the petitioner to sell the Govemment Land at market value i.e., land admeasuring Ac.0l_3 I gts in Sy.No. I44, situated at Kokapet Villge, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District in terms of B.s.o l5 (22) as illegar and for a consequentiar direction to respondent No'2 to consider the aforesaid representations submitted by the petitioner.

¶44

W.p.No.55 of 2023 is filed by the very same petirioner to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 4 in issuing notification for e-auction as non-est for the Iocked Govemment land admeasuring Ac.1-31 gts in Sy.No.144, situated at Kokapet Villge, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District without considering the representations dated t7.08.2022, 20.10.2022 and 14.t1.2022 submirted bv rhe petitioner as illegal.

¶45

J iri Harender Pcrshad, learned Slrcci:ir^{(ior.'ernrnent}

¶46

¶47

l)leadcr atlar: rel to the olficc ol lcamed Advocatc C c'ren I appcaring lor rcspon,lc, rt Nos.l to 3 in W.P.No.45564 o| 2022. r>n instt-uctions. rvould ,suh,rn t that respondents have deciderl not to consider the requcst rnacle by the petitioners lor sale of the afbresaicl laLrd vide their reprcscntalio rs dated 17.08.2022, 20.10.2022 iur I 14.\.2022 AccordLng t r him, the aforesaid Board SLandir g older is not a pplicablc

¶48

ili '.Rama Ro, lcamed Standing Counscl appearing tbr I'IMI)A/resp rnlent No.4 in W.P.No.55 of 2023 has pt'cduced rules i.e., II\4t)A^llules 2017, nctified as per G.O.l4s.No.329 dated 22.12.201'7 rf lespondent No. l. wherein procetlure firr dis:osal ol thc lands is, spec fically mentioned in Rule No.5 and the same is produced

¶49

under

¶50

i) /ll the lands identified by tlrc^(lomm,tteee Irrespective of size.s shall be pul to e-nuclior'.

¶51

ii)The minimum upsel price shal! bt' one and half times of the ba.sic value of Suh-Re;;i:trar s toncerned as on lhc dale o-f auction.

¶52

iii) In lhc.firsl a-quction, no biddet tcmts /brward,^{second timeouction shallbr condtLt'td.} it) Even in case of second e<ucrio,L no bidder contes forward, lhe same shall be co,d rcted oJtcr six^(()(t) months.

¶53

v) Even in cose of single bidder in ;, cond auclion quoted price is more lhan oJ equal o up.set price it con be agreed. If il is less than ults:t oriLc it .thould go./br e -ouction.

( (

I I

t (

t t

vi) The Earnest Money Daposit^(DMD) shall be l0 ?6 of the e.stimured cost^{rdtheplot/stray} bit.

¶60

vii) For conducting e-auction, appropriate agency moy be engaged.

¶61

In view of the same, Sri Harender Pershad, leamed

¶62

Special Govemment Pleader and Sri Y.Rama Rao, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that Board Standing orders are not applicable in respect of subject land, they have to lollow the aforesaid Rule 5 of the HMDA Rutes,2017. According^to them, petitioners are not having any right, much less^{legal right either} to claim or purchase the aforesaid land at market value^andalsoto question the auction to be held on I 8.01 .2023 "

¶63

Whereas, Sri J.P.Srikanth, leamed counsel for^the. petitioners would submit that Kokapet Village area is a^commercial locality and market value is 23,800^per square^yard. Whereas,^{in the} impugned notification it is mentioned Rs.1,10,000^{per square yard} which is exorbitant. According to him, there is no access^{to the said} of land. Even then, without considering the said^{facts, respondentsare} conducting auction of the respective land.

¶64

Petitioner cannot seek sale of Government Land as a matter of right. If it is interested, it has to participate^{in auction,but} cannot stall the auction without establishing any^{irregularity in}

¶65

¶66

conducring 3i clio,',. Petitiorcr is secki.rg writ orrvrancrr:rmlS ar.l cl it has to esrablislr lreally enlorceable right in challenging rJre tLuction and also clai,i,g saie of the Govemrnent land. petitionerrr trer.t:in failed to establisl: .rn1 such right seeking Writ o1. Mardamts to the respondcnts. Irr vieu, of the same, Writ petirions ,rr,: ljable to be dismissec and ar:cordingiy they are dismissed. Trrer.e shrLlr tre no order as to cost s

¶67

As a :;er ut:J, miscellaneous petitions, if any, penli;rg in the Writ

¶68

Pet itiorushall ; and closed.

¶69

SD/. K.SFE ERI\MA MURTHY ASSISiT,AN-T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r, -lE=g]lqN-a.ffreER

¶70

¶71

To,

¶72

l. The Principal^{liet re ary, RevenueDepartment,Stateof TelangarLa.Secretariat} Building, Ilyd,:ra^ra,1.

¶73

The Distrii:t C,:ll ctrr,^{Ranga Reddy, RangaReddyDistnct,Telmganl.}

¶74

'The Chief^{3or--'tIrtssioner, Lantl Revenue and Administration (CXLA), Nampally,} Hyderabad.

¶75

The Comn-rssion :r. HMDA^{HyderabadMetropolitan Developrn-'nt ArLthority,} Swarnanjali C)tm tlcx^{.A.meerpet, Hyderabad.}

¶76

One CC to SRI. J P SRIKANTH^Advocate [OPUC]

¶77

One CC to SRt. '^'. IIAMA RAo,^{Standing Counselfor HMDA, High Court for the} State of Telangar a, l-lyderabad. IOPUC]

¶78

One CC to SRt. I IARENDER^{PERSHAD, SpecialGovemment Pl :adt:rto the officer} of Advocale Getr^:ra[, High^{Court for the Stateof Telangana,HyCerabrLd.} IOPUC]

¶79

8, Two CCs to GP I OR REVENUE,^{High Court forthe State of 'fr)1angana,Hyderabad} tourl

¶80

Tw'o CD Copi,:s

HIGH COURT

,ir=r,0. to1tzo23

---.-'---'19 c* S Tn ::--
l -<,
/t:
li .:
ii"' I 4 JUi.l z$n
, i
:;2'

¶85

o DER

¶86

W .No.55 of^>-023 AND 45564 OF 2022

¶87

DI MISSING 0F THE WRIT PETITION

¶88

WI HOUT CO JTS

¶89

1u
\ L ,t
\q
gs"

M/s Fortune Builders v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Fortune Builders v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amina Noorain Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Mr. Shailesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India and 3 others

Cmr Technical Educational Society and another Vs Medical Assessment and Rating Board and 3 others

Smt. Vattikonda Jangamma Vs The State of Telangana

Pochampally Madurramma and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

S.K. Khadim Hussain Vs State of Telangana