SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 60022

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
Smt. Anugu Venkata Ramana – Appellant
Versus
The Telangana Housing Board – Respondent
WP 24393/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24393 OF 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 15.12.2025 Between:

Anugu Venkata Ramana and another ...Petitioners AND The Telangana Housing Board, (formerly A.P. Housing Board), Represented by its Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, Gruha Kalpa, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents ORDER : (ORAL)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not considering their representation dated 10.03.2025 pertaining to the property bearing H.No.MIG-I/52, Housing Board Colony, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad, as being illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct respondent No.1 to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the subject property by receiving balance sale consideration payable by them.

2. Heard Mr. P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. C.Buchi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Housing Board, appearing for respondents No.1 and 2; and perused the material on record.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Housing Board had allotted a Residential House i.e. H.No.MIG-1/52 at A.P. Housing Board Colony, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad, vide Allotment Letter No.52/MIG-I/ 52/E4/EE-NZB/94 dated 28.01.1994 in favour of one Mr. D.Krishnamurthy (original allottee) and an agreement of sale dated 19.09.1997 was executed in his favour in respect of the subject property with specific boundaries mentioned therein. The original allottee transferred the allotment to one Mr. L.Ashok on 12.08.1999 and Mr. L.Ashok, in turn, transferred the allotment to the petitioners herein and agreement of sale dated 01.04.2011 was executed in their favour. The petitioners paid total amount of Rs.8,20,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs twenty thousand only) to Mr. L.Ashok on 16.06.2011. The petitioners came to know that further sum of Rs.5,40,000/- (Rupees five lakhs forty thousand only) was to be paid by the allottee to the Housing Board. It is submitted that the petitioners had been visiting the office of respondent No.2 in connection with the registered sale deed to be executed in their favour. That two employees of the Housing Board by name Mr. R.Venkat Reddy (NMR Worker in the office of respondent No.2) and Mr. Moses Raju (now deceased - Superintendent, office of respondent No.2), who were regularly present at the office of respondent No.2, at Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad, collected an amount of Rs.8,40,000/- from the petitioners in cash, saying that the money will be remitted in favour of the Housing Board and that they would do the needful. Under the bonafide belief that the issue would be legally processed, the petitioners paid the said amount to the aforesaid two persons. Thereafter, registered sale deed bearing document No.4515 of 2001 dated 03.06.2011 was executed by respondent No.2 and one of the persons who signed the format as per Section 32A in the said document was Mr. Moses Raju, who described himself as “Supdt. i.e., Superintendent, Office of the Executive Engineer, APHB, Nizamabad” and his photograph was affixed in the said format along with his signature. The photograph of the Executive Engineer (Housing) was also affixed and the witnesses to the said document are described as “Assistant Estate Officer, A.P. Housing Board, Nizamabad and Superintendent, A.P. Housing Board, Nizamabad”. The name of the Executive Officer (Housing) who executed the said sale deed dated 03.06.2011 and who signed on behalf of the Housing Board was shown as “V.Pitcheshwar Rao”. Later, the petitioners came to know that Mr. Moses Raju retired as on the date of the execution of sale deed and had been reengaged on contract basis.

4. It is submitted that the petitioners had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property since 2011. Later, respondent No.2 filed O.S. No.512 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Jud

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top