Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 88 (TS)

SSPDL Limited v. State of Telangana

2025-03-03

K.LAKSHMAN

body2025
ORDER : K. Lakshman, J. Heard Mrs. N. Sasikala, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. B. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The petitioner filed a Memo vide USR No. dated not pressing this writ petition against respondent No.3. 2. CASE OF THE PETITIONER i) The petitioner had undertaken a project to develop low-cost housing for the benefit of employees of BHEL. The Housing Units were sold to respondent No.4, which in turn, allocated them to the employees of BHEL by taking all necessary permissions including layout approval from HMDA. ii) In the sanctioned layout plan, dated 03.07.2014 and layout permit dated 21.06.2022, it has categorically mentioned that no road exists. The area in question is specifically designated for ‘future expansion’. iii) It is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs. 1.02 guntas in Survey No.191/36, situated at Kollur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.3482 of 2017, dated 03.03.2018 executed by M/s. SSPDL Properties Limited, its sister concern. Thus, it has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property. iv) Thereafter, its name was mutated in revenue records. It also obtained conversion proceedings converting the aforesaid land from agricultural to non-agricultural. v) Out of the aforesaid extent, the petitioner sold an extent of 3080 square yards to Mr. Vasireddy Nageswara Rao and Mrs. Vasireddy Vani under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.49230, 49231 and 49232 of 2018, all dated 03.12.2018. An extent of 1515 square yards was acquired by respondent No.2 for road widening. Thus, an extent of 485 square yards of land is left with the petitioner which is hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’. vi) At the time of registration of sale deed in favour of Mrs. Vasireddy Vani, one of the boundaries is inadvertently mentioned as ‘road’. Therefore, a rectification deed was presented mutually with respondent No.3 vide P. No.570 of 2024, dated 06.11.2024. Instead of rectifying the said mistake, respondent No.3 sought a clarification from respondent No.2 as to the existence of road. Vasireddy Vani, one of the boundaries is inadvertently mentioned as ‘road’. Therefore, a rectification deed was presented mutually with respondent No.3 vide P. No.570 of 2024, dated 06.11.2024. Instead of rectifying the said mistake, respondent No.3 sought a clarification from respondent No.2 as to the existence of road. Taking advantage of the same, on 02.11.2024 respondent No.2 accompanied by Town Planning Officer of Tellapur Municipality and its staff at the instance of local political persons entered into the subject property and removed the storage container placed on the subject land without issuing any notice or opportunity. vii) The petitioner also gave representations dated 04.11.2024, 11.11.2024 and 29.11.2024 to respondent No.2 with a request to prevent encroachments. Despite receiving and acknowledging the same, respondent No.2 did not act upon the same. viii) Respondent No.2 instead of clarifying the query raised by respondent No.3 about existence of road in municipal records, gave a reply dated 30.11.2024 to respondent No.3 stating that as per sale deed bearing document No.49232 of 2018, a road is existence. Neither respondent No.2 nor respondent No.4 has any right to lay a road on the subject land. 3. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.2 i) Respondent No.2 denied the ownership of petitioner to the extent of Acs.1.02 guntas in Survey No.191/36 of Kolluru Village. ii) The land in Survey No.191/36 is part of the sanctioned layout dated 03.07.2014 and 21.06.2022, and there is no mention of specific extent of land in Survey No.191/36 is covered in layout. iii) The future expansion area was further sub-divided by the petitioner into three plots and sold to third parties vide the aforesaid sale deeds. In all the said documents, the subject land is shown as 40 feet wide road’ and no land has been shown as remaining land of owner. Thus, no land is left with the petitioner. In the sale deed bearing document No.49232 of 2018, it is mentioned as 40 feet road to the east connecting to the HMDA Approved layout road. iv) In fact, the road was already in existence. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 is interfered with the possession of the petitioner etc. is false and incorrect. 4. In the sale deed bearing document No.49232 of 2018, it is mentioned as 40 feet road to the east connecting to the HMDA Approved layout road. iv) In fact, the road was already in existence. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 is interfered with the possession of the petitioner etc. is false and incorrect. 4. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.2 i) The petitioner entered into a MOU, dated 05.09.2012 with respondent No.4 society for developing a Housing Scheme for 1200 Members of the Society on the lands situated at Kolluru and Osman Nagar Villages. Accordingly, the petitioner pooled undisputed land to an extent of Acs.88.26 guntas in Survey Nos.30/P and 191/P including the entire land of Acs.3.00 guntas in Survey No.191/36 belonging to M/s. SSPDL Properties Private Limited and made into a Layout vide permit dated 03.07.2014. Thus, there is no vacant/open land in Survey No.191/36 excluding the layout plots. Therefore, the petitioner has no right or claim or possession of any land in Survey No.191/36. ii) M/s. SSPDL Properties Limited purchased the land to an extent of Acs.13.39 guntas in Survey No.191, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.19918 of 2006, dated 28.08.2006 including the land to an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas in Survey No.191/36/A and Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.191/36/AA, making a total extent of Acs.3.00 guntas in Survey No.191/36. The land purchased by M/s. SSPDL Properties Limited, vide the said document bearing No.19918 of 2006 is made part of layout in 2014 itself. Thus, M/s. SSPDL Properties Limited had left with no land in Survey No.191/36. Thus, any sale deed executed by M/s. SSPDL Properties Limited subsequent to the layout in favour of M/s. SSPDL Limited does not create any right/claim in respect of the land in Survey No.191/36 in favour of the petitioner. iii) There is title dispute with regard to the subject land in Survey No.191/36 of Kolluru Village, which cannot be decided by this Court in a writ petition. iv) Even otherwise, as per the area statement in approved layout, the future expansion area is only 4232 square meters, but it does not specify the survey number. v) In the layout, it was shown two areas as future expansion wherein one area is shown as local commercial future expansion area covering 1200 square meters and the balance remains only 3032 square meters. v) In the layout, it was shown two areas as future expansion wherein one area is shown as local commercial future expansion area covering 1200 square meters and the balance remains only 3032 square meters. The petitioner without any approval from the competent authority converted the said land into three commercial plots by leaving existing 40 feet road towards east side. Plot No.1 is covering 838 square meters (1003 square yards), Plot No.2 is covering 787.82 square meters (942 square yards) and Plot No.3 is covering 903 square meters (1080 square yards) and road affected area is 1266.73 square meters (1515 square yards), making a total extent of 3785.55 square meters i.e., more than balance future expansion area. Thus, nothing remains with the petitioner. vi) If any land is available adjoining the main road, it may be part of Survey no.191, but not exactly Survey No.191/36. Even otherwise, there is no demarcation of land in Survey No.191/36 covering part of layout and the land outside the layout. vii) 40 Feet Wide Road is in existence even prior to the layout which was used to reach the agricultural lands and farm houses for more than 30 years. viii) As per the approved layout, the HMDA sanctioned 1265 plots of 180 square yards each. Out of which, 1155 plots were sold to respondent No.4 society vide registered sale deed bearing document No.4367 of 2015, dated 04.02.2015 and balance 110 plots remained with the petitioner. The petitioner alienated the said 110 plots in favour of third parties by showing the subject land 40 feet road as approach road connecting 100 feet main road and they are using the very same road to reach their houses. Even the Mission Bhagiratha Drinking Water connection pipeline is also passing through the said subject land 40 feet wide road and the said work was also undertaken by the petitioner company itself on behalf of and at the expenditure of respondent No.4. ix) There is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 with regard to implementation of the said drinking water project and accordingly the petitioner started obstructing the members of society in using the said 40 feet road. Then, the petitioner filed a suit vide O.S. No.30 of 2024 before the Principal Civil Judge, Sangareddy against some of the members of respondent No.4. Thereafter, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.10.2024. Then, the petitioner filed a suit vide O.S. No.30 of 2024 before the Principal Civil Judge, Sangareddy against some of the members of respondent No.4. Thereafter, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.10.2024. Suppressing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 5. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT i) In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is the main contention of the petitioner that it is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land. At the time of executing of sale deed bearing document No.49232 of 2018, inadvertently one of the boundaries is mentioned as ‘road’. Having noticed such mistake, both the parties mutually executed a rectification deed and submitted the same before respondent No.3 - Sub-Registrar for registration. But, respondent No.3 sought a clarification from respondent No.2, who in turn addressed a letter to respondent No.3 stating that there exists a 40 feet road. Further, taking advantage of such mistake, respondent No.2 is trying to lay a road on the subject land. In fact, there is no road in existence over the subject land. Whereas, respondent Nos.2 and 4 disputed the same contending that there exists 40 feet wide road connecting 100 feet main road for the last 30 years and the same is being used by some of the Members of respondent No.4. ii) Perusal of sale deed bearing document No.49232 of 2018, dated 03.12.2018 executed by the petitioner in favour of Mrs. Vasireddy Vani would reveal that eastern boundary is shown as ’40 Feet wide Road to HMDA Layout’. Even in the plan annexed to the said sale deed also discloses the same. The said sale deed was executed in the year 2018 and after elapse of about six (06) years, both the parties to the said sale deed came forward and executed a rectification deed mutually contending that there was typographical mistake crept in mentioning the eastern boundary as 40 feet wide road to HMDA Layout” instead of Survey No.191/36 Part (Owner SSPDL Ltd. Land). After execution of the said rectification deed, they presented the same before respondent No.3 for registration, but the same was kept pending by respondent No.3 on the ground of seeking clarification from respondent No.2 with regard to existence of road. On receipt of letter from respondent No.3, respondent No.2 Municipality addressed a letter stating that there exists 40 feet wide road. On receipt of letter from respondent No.3, respondent No.2 Municipality addressed a letter stating that there exists 40 feet wide road. In view of the same, respondent No.3 kept the said document pending. iii) In view of the aforesaid submissions on either side, it is clear that there is dispute with regard to identification of property. Whether there exists a 40 feet wide road and the same is being used by some of the Members of respondent No.4 society or it is the land belongs to the petitioner is a serious disputed question of fact. This Court can consider factual aspects which are not serious / complicated in nature in a writ petition filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. A writ petition is maintainable in contractual matters as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. , (2004) 3 SCC 553 . But, certainly, this Court cannot consider serious/complicated questions of fact in a writ petition. iv) It is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that the petitioner had alienated 110 plots in favour of third parties by showing the 40 feet wide road. Now, the petitioner cannot turn around and say that there is no road. Even the rectification deed submitted by the petitioner is pending with respondent No.3. Thus, there are serious/complicated questions of fact which this Court cannot consider in a writ petition filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has to approach competent Civil Court and establish its right. The petitioner cannot seek adjudication of serious disputed/complicated questions of fact in the present writ petition. The said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Ehsan , 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887 . Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain present writ petitions on the aforesaid grounds. v) Even otherwise, it is contended by respondent No.4 that the petitioner filed a suit vide O.S. No.30 of 2024 against the Members of respondent No.4 seeking perpetual injunction and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.10.2024. Suppressing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and, therefore, it is not entitled for any relief. Perusal of record would reveal that the petitioner filed the said suit on 13.02.2024, whereas the present writ petition is filed on 06.12.2024. Suppressing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and, therefore, it is not entitled for any relief. Perusal of record would reveal that the petitioner filed the said suit on 13.02.2024, whereas the present writ petition is filed on 06.12.2024. Even then, the petitioner did not disclose the said fact in the present writ petition. Thus, there is suppression of fact by the petitioner. In view of the same, by applying maxim “suppression veri or suggestion of falsi”, the writ petition has to be dismissed without going into the merits of the case. The said principle was also held by the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik , 2025 INSC 218 . Thus, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. CONCLUSION The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to approach competent Civil Court seeking necessary relief in respect of the subject land. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.