Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty
Santosh Hooli – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. non-existing auctioned plot led to delayed refund. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding entitlements to interest. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. writ jurisdiction applicable in contractual dispute involving state. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. entitlement to interest based on fairness and timelines. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 5. court's final decision on interest awarded. (Para 17) |
ORDER:
1.This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not paying the compound interest @ 24 % per annum from 14.09.2007 to 30.07.2015 on Rs.51,66,800/- paid by the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal and unjustified.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is native of Hubli, Karnataka and presently settled in USA and he is an NRI; that petitioner participated in the auction conducted by respondent No.2 on 14.09.2007, for sale of open plots and the petitioner became highest bidder in respect of plot No.666/A, Miyapur Residential Complex, Miyapur, and paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.51,66,800/- vide Challan Nos.10068/ 2007-08 dated 17.09.2007 for Rs.5,00,000/-, 10255/2007-08 dated 19.09.2007 for Rs.7,91,000/- and 45/2007-08 dated 01.10.2007 for Rs.38,75,100
Auctioned properties must be free from encumbrances, and buyers are entitled to interest on delayed refunds, reinforcing the obligation of fairness by authorities.
The cancellation of allotment was justified due to the petitioner's failure to comply with payment terms, emphasizing the importance of adhering to auction conditions and public interest.
The State must disclose pending litigation affecting auctioned properties; failure to do so constitutes arbitrary action, entitling buyers to refunds.
The Jharkhand State Housing Board cannot charge compound interest on amounts already paid; only simple interest on outstanding amounts is permissible.
Claims for land lease rights can be barred by delay, especially when previous agreements are accepted without protest.
Disputes arising from contractual agreements with state bodies should generally be resolved in civil courts, not via writ petitions under Article 226.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
