M/s. Ankura Homes Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

t^{3301 I}

¶2

IN THE^{HIGH COURTfORDTHE€TATE} ^:::ELANGANA (SPeciai^{Original Jurisdiction)}

¶3

.TWO F R^{I DAY'} THOUSAT^{t *} E P$- I,?jY.,?E,HTI

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE^{HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE PULLAKARTHIh}

¶6

wRI^TP E^TIT loN^NOl40 481^OF 2025

¶7

Between: rnc Srrbishini^{Town Center'} xi';A:Tiq,:][fi.{:$}fi :ilil!:'"lh [ ^1'J",il1'[Xli3"l'']X; Ranqareddy^Distnct Partner,^{Sri' Timmayagari JaipalReddy'}

¶8

,..PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

rhe^{state of rerangana' Rep bv-its :'S"''^X;;oT:l'hi?ll"t""f"teT:i} ' ,"i dtgittration) 6epartment'^{Dr' B R An} Hyderabad' ^^a^{r^c^a'tnr}^G eneri^{eneral Registration Registrationand stampsstamps}

¶11

Hyderabad' ^^a^{r^c^a'tnr}^G eneri^{eneral Registration Registrationand stampsstamps}

¶12

1. The^{Commissioner and lnspector} Department,^{GovernmJntof Telangana'Hyderabad'}

¶13

The^{DistrictRegistrar' Rangareddy District'}

¶14

The^{Sub-Registrar,Shankarpally' Rangareddy District.}

¶15

Sri.^{Beerla Srinivas'S/o' Beerla Bperesh'aqed about 34 years'Occ'} Asricutture,^{*r". ,.',ii.i'Ui 5i.grpri,ShanrarpJtlytvlunicipalityand lrilandal'} RangareddY^District'

¶16

Sri.^{Beerla Srihari,S/o Beerla Beeresh' aqed about 31 years' Occ'} Agriculture,^{wo. n.i.roi'-'or, singuprr,shanrarp"alty Municipalityand Mandal,} RangareddY^District'

¶17

Sri Mangali^{Vittalaiah, Sio Mangali Pentaiah'Aged about 71 years' Occ'} Business,^{ny" H. r.ro. i-s+15,Sirigapur, Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District'} Telangana^{- 501203'}

¶18

Smt. Mangali^{Praveena,W/o MangaliAnjaneyulu' Aged about 41 years'Occ'} Housewife, nyo^{n.l'1"o. i-s+/s, siniup""shahkarpally' Ranga Reddy District'} Telangana^- 501203.

¶19

g.Smt.MarellaVanaja,WoMarellaKrishnaiah,Aged.63years,Occ. Housewife,^{nyo n.G.is-r26, Flat No Gl' RR Residency' KodandaRam} iasar, opp. Reddy Brothers,^{Dilsukhnagar,Hyderabad - 500036'}

¶20

Smt. Kendyala Swaroo ilE* e*:il #rfl #ilJ;Ti*t# ;: ;#,if,:f ;

¶21

'RESPONDENTS

¶22

petition under Anicre 2.)A ^t * - 'RESPONDENTS 226 of the constitut' circumstances stated in n of rndia p r rying that in the the affidavit fireo therewth to issue a writ, order the High co,t may be pleased or Direction mo,.e pa'ticuti' by Mandamus, aggrieved rhe 4th respondent #'H^{jT,:i;I#kiffi} ,.;T., #ffi ff: name and style as ,,leON West Luxury Homes,, constructed ( yer the land in SyNo'23/3/4' 23r2t1/111/112, 23/1AAr2, 24tN6r2, 24tAN5t2, i3/2/1t2, 23/3/3, 23rAAr1 ' 24rA5/1 , 24rA611 , 23t2r1t1/1/2, 23/211t2, 23t2/1t111r1 23r2r1r1t1r1r1 admeasuring 39,52g.54 sq. mtrs., situated at Fathepur Viila<t, ,, Shankarpaily Municiparity and Mandar, Rangareddy District, and thereby intenrr rg to refuse to register any documents presented by the petitioner, respondents i to g and other third parties pertaininq to the 94 viras in "rQoN west Luxury H. nes,, as iregar, arbitrary and against the provisions of rndian stamps and Registrat )n Act, against principles of natural justice against all setfled principles of law and a( ainst the order dt.O5.09.2024 passed by the Hon,ble llt Additional District Jud(, ,, Rangareddy District, at LB Nagar in r.A.No.504 of 2022 in o.S.No..r042 of 2022, ir( ainst order dt. 08.10.2025, 15.10.2025 and 10.11.2025 passed by this Hor ble Court in cMA'No'562 0f 2024, against orders passed by this Hon'bre co -r t in w.p.Nos. 23775 of 2025 and 23979 of 2025 both dt.2l.1o.2o2s and wp Nc. )9528 of 2025 dt'24.12.2025 and consequenily set aside the retter bearing L.trrr .435 of 2o2s dt'22 12.2025 and by directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to receiv .,, register and release any document present by the petitioner, respondent Nos.S h B and/or any third party purchaser pertaining to the 94 villas in the leoN wesl uxury homes, situated at Fathepur Village, Shankarpally trlunicipality and Manda , Rangareddy District,^HYderabad.

¶23

l.A.^NO:1 OF²⁰²⁵ ns^{that in the circumstarr'} ::l:tfl':,::: Pe[rtion^{underSection 151 CPCprayr} High^{Courtmay be Plea;e} i'n^{tuopo'tot the petitron' the} Urra*-'--t

¶24

rhe^3rd i,: i: :::,,:"::":',jl,l"'J;-"i,iu^{?o'u':'.T:: flJ;IJI} pr"sentea^{or tnt,:^"::le} e4^{vras in the teoN westluxuryhomes' Fathepur} "onr.", pertaining . "^{n1,,:t':1t^'l^,.0r,]}""nareddy Disrrict by suspending Municipalitv^{and Mandal' ""ffi;} f atn o",r"o"'^ot^{maln writ} lrffi;;;-arparty the^{letter bearing " otulodl22'12'2025'pendingdisposal}

¶25

sr'^couNSEL'REP rorthe^petitio""" :tl,"ilf,to,.H..T1s',;,J', ":::" Counsel^{for the RespondentNo'l to 4: GP FOR STAMPS& REGISTRATION} counser^{ror the RespondentNo'5 t t'} 3tl[3ri3rlE[ti5I[*^l

¶26

counser^{fortheRespondent No'e} "' iE,Yt"?t#Bt'S'ffft#:Stitftt'

¶27

The^{Courtmade the following:ORDER}

¶28

f

¶29

IN THE HIGH COUR,] ^i?f#xlfff^{,, or. TELANGANA} THE HON,BLE SRT JUSTICE PULLA KI.RTHIK

¶30

WRITPETITION No .404a I OF 202,;

¶31

Between:

¶32

Dat ed 6th March 2o26

¶33

M/s. Ankura Homes Having its Office ar Suite 8_305

¶34

[+.tiru;='J,lfi;:f"il*.l; tr:,#ilf Ti|'i;#";^{n"iav oili.i"t,} I"p^{Uy irs Autho.ized} S. Parrn er s.i r,- -,"n r sJJ,gl:,f# i:.flr,

¶35

Pe itioner

¶36

AND

¶37

The State of Tela n ga na, fin^{Ur its principitSecrerary,} fev:n3e^{(Stamps & RegistrarionJ} Deparrmenr, Dr. B. R Ambedkar Bhavan,secretariat, Hyderabad and (9) orhers

¶38

Rer; rondents

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

With the consent of the parties, the writ petr ion itself is taken for disposal rrt the admission stage.

¶41

Aggrieved b}' the letter bearing Lr. No.435/ 2025 dated 22.12.2025 issueC by respondent No.4 intendir 1 to refuse of 94^{Villas in the project under ttre nzr -re ald stvle} registration

2

,r

PK,^J wp 40481²⁰²⁵

'IQON^{West Luxury Homes' constructedin the land in survey} Nos.23l3/4,^{% I 2 I 1' I I I t I I I 2' 23 I IAAI 2' 24 I Al 6 I 2' 24 I AAI 5 I 2'} %l2ltl2,^{%1313' 23lAlrlr' 24lAslr' 241pl6lr'23l2l1lt lt 12',} and 23l2lIlrlrlll1 admeasuring 23121^lltlllr xl2lrl2, 3g,52g.54^{sq. mtrs. situated at Fathepur Vilrage, shankarpally} Municipality^{and Maldal'Ranga Reddy District'the present Writ} Petition^{is hled'}

¶46

Heard^{Sri B'ChandrasenReddy' learned seniorcounsel'} 3) appearing^{for Sri B' Vamshidhar Reddy' learned counselfor the} petitioner,^{learned GovernmentPleader ' forStampsa5d} Registration^{appearing for respondent Nos' 1 to 4' Sri K'S' Suneel'} iearned^{counselrepresentingSriAbhishek Agarwal, learned} counsel for^{respondent Nos'5 to B' and Sri Vedula Srinivas'learned} senior counsel,^{appearing for Smt' Veduia Chitralekha'learned} counsel for^{respondent Nos'9 and 10'}

¶47

Learned senior^{counsel appearing for the petitioner has} 4) submitted that^{the impugnedletter dated 22'07 '2025 has been} issued by respondent^{No'4 mainly based on the interim order} passedinI.A.No.504of2022ino.S.No.l042of2022onthefileof III Additional^{District Judge,Ralga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.}

¶48

i.^

¶49

PK..I wp-4o481 2o2s

¶50

However, subsequenrv rh^ h: ::.'i',1;;^{""'L':'.":::':: ;:'r} z';^11is d modified^{c'u in} order^cMA has clarilied that t "'^LIUrrcr herein is restrained frorn inrerro.in- ,,.:.r i0 herein onr-rz 16*T-: ,t1 the "-'t" ::."';: "ol ;:::,. :re extent of Acs. 14_02 guntas ou t of the totat extent of Acs'21-02 guntas of the suit schedule rr -operty which is kept vacant. Learned senior counsel h a s -,'""' n s submi ted that in the remaining rand of the sr,i+ ^^,^^ , "''t^{scheduleproperty} i e u cs.7-00 guntas in o.S. No. 1042 ort 2022 the constructions ar: made by the petitioner herein. Therefore, there is no order .estraining the registering auttrority to register the documents sought to be presented by thr: petitioner. Further, w.hile drawjr I the attention of this Court to the order dated 28. IO.2O2S in W.).No.23 ZTS of 2025 and dared 2g. 10.2O2S in W.p.No.23 979 of 2Oj2), thelearned senior counsel has contended that in the said twc writ petitions respondent Nos.i) and l0 have fairly conceded fit_ registration whereas in the pt.esent writ petition, they have take r U-Turn and opposlng the registration Therefore, the learned Si( nlor COLtnSel prays this CourL to direct the registering authorities 1r register tl_re documents sought^{Lo be presentedby the petitiorLrasweII as}

¶51

A

¶52

PK, J wp_40481 2025

¶53

respondentNos.StoBinrespectofg4villaswithoutreferenceto theorderd,ated'22.oT.2025passedbythetrialCorrrtaSwellasthe pendency^{of O.S.No. lO42 of 2022before the trial Court'}

¶54

Per contra, the^{learned Government Pleader has submitted} 5) thattheorderdated28.lo.2o25inW.P.No.23775of2025and dated28.lo.2025inW.P.No.23979of2025,werepassedbasingon the consent^{given by the contesting unofflcialrespondents therein} and therefore^{the RegisteringAuthorityhas entertained registration} in respect of^{the Villas coveredby W P'Nos'23775 atd 2397 9 ol} 2025. Therefore,^{the petitioner cannot place reliance on the said} orders in the^{present writ petition'}

¶55

On the other^{hand, the learned senior counsel appezrring for} 6) the contesting^{unofficialrespondents has submittedthat onlytwo} viilaswerecor,eredbyW.P.Nos.23775of23979of2025andas such the consent^{was given that in respect of those tu'o villas'} Further,intheorderdated28.Lo.2025inW.P.Nos.23775of23979 of 2025, it was^{categorically mentioned that said registration shall} be subject to the^{outcorneof O.S. No.1042of 2022 pendingbefore} the trial court.^{Leatned senior counsel contended that the total}

¶56

-s PK, J wp-404U 1-2025

¶57

it

¶58

villas constrlrcted by the petitioner are 94 anr out of them in respect of tw() villas, orders were already passr:<l by this Court in W.p.Nos.2377i of 23979 of 2O2S and therelore re ief sought for in the present writ petition in respect of 94 villas c. rrnot be granted by this Court. Learned senior counsel has furthe,t contended that the petitioner is not entitred for any relief in this v.. it petition since it cannot execure anv document in respect of the la r d aclmeasuring Acs. 14,02 guntas, ri,hich is the share of answer r g. respondents herein in the suit schedule property, which has brr n protected by the order passed by the Division Bench in C.M.l. No.5 62/2024 dated 08.1O.202:j and i5. 1O.2O25. Further, in I.A r :.3 of 2025 in CMA No.562 /202,4 also it was clarified by the DivisL, n Bench that the orders date.l 0g.10.2025 and 1S.10.2025 ar __ subject ro registered sale deeds marked as Exs.R. 1 and R.2 [:i lore the trial court. Thus, it is contendecr by the learncd senior cc.r Lnscl that, at the most, the petirioner can sell the prots/vilras rallinl in Acs.2 00 of land and the petitioner has already sold much I eyond that. Therefore, the leamed senior counsel has strenuousll, _rpposed the prayer sought by tbe petitioner.

¶59

6 PK, J wp 40481_2025

¶60

This Court has taken note o[ the submissions made by respective counsel and peruscd thc material on record

¶61

A perusal of the record discloses that in an earlier occasion the ansu,ering respondents have given consent in W.P. Nos.23775 of 2025 and 23979 of 2025 for registration in respect of Villa Nos.3 and 6. In the present case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned letter dated 22.12.2025 whereby respondent No.4 has expressed that registration c:innot be done in the absence of any specihc directions from the Court and clarihed that earlier registration in respect of two villas wcre made based on the orders from this Court. The main ground urged by the ans',,ering respondents is that by virtue of the order dated 10.ll.2025 passed by the Division Bench in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in CMA No.56212O24, the sale/ registrations of the Villas are subject to registered sale deeds marked as Exs.R. 1 and R.2 bcfore the trial Court. As such, if the registrations arc allou,ed, the same will prejudice the answering respondents

¶62

'7

¶63

PK, J wp 4048 r_2025

¶64

For better adjudication of the matter, this lourt deems it necessary to reproduce relevant portions of the or::rs passed and observations mzrde by the Division Bench.

¶65

a) Paragraphs 6 to B of the order passed in CMA '1o.562 of 2O24 dated OB. lO.2025 as modified on 15. 10.2025 read :r; under:

¶66

"6. The concluding paragraphs of the impugned oruL r Jacl<s clarity in terms of stating the exact area or extent of the shar: : the plarntiffs in the schedule property. As stated above, the suit sc:Lr lule property consists of Acs.21.O2 gts. The appellant has constructed o Acs.7.00 gts out of the suit schedule property.

¶67

CMA No.562 of 2024 is accordingly disposed c f by clarifying that the appellart is restrained from interfering rvith the pt. intiff,s rights to the extent of r\cs. 14.02 gts. of the suit schedule proper .. in rvhich no construction has already taken place.

¶68

lt is also recorded that Acs. 14_02 gts. is preselttl free of any construction. The plaintiffs are hence protected irr respect of Acs14,O2 gts. of the suit schedule property, Thc ;; rrties, other grievances shall bc addressed before the Trial Court in he pending proceedings. All steps including construction carrierl rut by the appellant in respect of any open spaces which form part of ttLe suit schedule propertl, shall also be part of the protected area granted in favour of the plair: tiffs."

¶69

(emphas s supplied)

¶70

b) Simiiarly, the relevant portion of the order date<l 10. 1l.2O2S passed by the Division Bench in I.A. No.3 of 2025 in C ,1.A. No.562 of 2024 reads as under

¶71

8

¶72

<br>

¶73

PK, J w^{4o4at 2025}

¶74

"Hence, we are not inclined to modify the order dated 0g_1O_202S any further. We, however, make it clear that the order dated Og_1O_2O2S and the subsequently clarificatory order dated. 1S-1O-2O2S shall be subject to the registered Sale Deeds (Exs.R.l and R.2|

¶75

We reiterate that the suit schedule property consists of Acs.21.O2 guntas and that the respondent No. I/appellant has undertaken construction on Acs.7.O guntas out of the suit schedule property. This fact. as noted in the order dated 08-10-2025, remajns unchanged. Needless to say, the Tria-l Court shall exercise its discretion independent of any observations madc by us. No further clarification is required in this matter."

¶76

(emphasis supplied)

¶77

In view of the specific observations of the Division Bench, referred supra, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of the answering respondents has been sulficiently protected by the Division Bench in respect of their share of land i.e. Acs.14-02 guntas.

¶78

For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Court finds that there is no embargo for the registering authorities to refuse registration of the left over Villas, which were constructed in Acs.7_00 gts, as observed a.d reiterated by the Division Bench in its order dated 70.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.3 of 2O2S in C.M.A. No.562 of 2024.

¶79

--....-._....-

¶80

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed o directir-rg the registering authorities to receive, register arr( release the documents sought to be presented by the petitio rer as well as respondent Nos 5 to 8 in respect of the Villas si_ rated at IeON West Luxury Homes, Fathepur Village, Shankarpat ,, Municipality and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without referen:, to impugned letter No.435/2025 dated 22.12.2025. Hou,er r r, any such registration shall be subject to the outcome of O rt. No. lO42 of 2022 pendtns on the Iile of III Additional District rudge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, more precisely Exs; R.1 and R.2 marked in I.A. No.504 ol 2022 in O.S. No.1042 of 2()12. It is also made clear that the petitioner as well as respondent I,i ;s.5 to g and their subsequent purchasers shall not claim any eqr-rit es basing on the registration to be made by the Registering Author t), pursuant to this order.

¶81

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall ; and closed

¶82

No costs

¶83

SDI-^{B. IEKHARANI} ISTAN'T^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// s 1 OF R

¶84

To,

¶85