I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.954 OF 2008 AND I .A.No.01 of 2024 I N WRI T PETI TI ON No.954 OF 2008 Between:

M/s. Nam Hotels Private Limited and Others … Petitioners And M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., and Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 09.06.2025 THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes.

see the fair copy of the Judgment?

________________________________

MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.954 OF 2008 AND I .A.No.01 of 2024 in WRI T PETI TI ON No.954 OF 2008 % 09.06.2025 Between:

# M/s. Nam Hotels Private Limited and Others … Petitioners And $ M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., and Others … Respondents Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 : Sri Vikram Pooserla, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri Malipeddy Abhinay Reddy ! Counsel for the Petitioner Nos.6 to 13 : Sri N Naveen Kumar.

^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri Sripathi Rao, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri R.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on record ^ Counsel for Respondent No.4 to 6 : Sri K.Krishna ? Cases Referred: i) (2021) 6 SCC 771 ii) (1998) 8 SCC 1 iii) (2021) SCC Online SC page 801 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.954 OF 2008 AND I .A.No.01 of 2024 I N WRI T PETI TI ON No.954 OF 2008

ORDER:

Heard Sri Vikram Pooserla, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri Malipeddy Abhinay Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 on record, Sri N Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Nos.6 to 13, Sri Sripathi Rao, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri R.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on record and Sri K.Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“.........to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ and declaring that the action of the 1^st respondent in initiating and pursuing the proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against the property of the petitioners situated in Sy.No.11 of Guttalabegimpet village Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District subsequent to the allotment in G.O.Ms.No. 128, Rev (UC.III) Dept, dated 8. 2. 2006 under Section 23 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 is arbitrary ultra virus the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and without authority of law and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to forbear from taking any coercive action against the said land in the purported recovery of the dues of the outstanding amount due from the 3^rd respondent and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.......”

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, as per the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present writ petition, is as under:

Petitioners are purchasers of different extents of land from the total extent of Ac 5.00 (17,016.33 Sq.meters) in Sy.No.11, Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District under different registered sale deeds that were executed by the 5^th respondent company in pursuance of an order of allotment in its favour vide G.O.Ms.No.128, Rev.(UC-II) Department, dated 08.02.2006 and consequential allotment order, dated 16.03.2006, issued by the 6^th respondent in exercise of its power under Section 23 of the Urban Land ( Ceiling and Regulation)

Act, 1976, hereinafter called the 1976 Act.

It is