JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, ACJ. 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 of Development Agreement. 25.0 2. Within one (1) calendar month from the Developer receiving written approvals from HUDA for this DPR 25.0 3. Within one (1) calendar month from the Developer achieving the Financial Closure for the Project. 25.0 4 Within one (1) calendar month from the Zero Date. 25.0 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. Within one (1) calendar month from the Developer achieving the Financial Closure for the Project. 25.0 4 Within one (1) calendar month from the Zero Date. 25.0 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. 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 , [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 ] , 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 himself to the question of non-registration and permitted the appellants to avail remedies available to them. 20. The lis before the learned Single Judge was not related to any title/civil dispute. Hence, the learned Single Judge has confined 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.