*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVLI AND *THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY +CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No. 76 of 2013 Between:

M.M. Rehaman … Appellant AND Hyderabad Urban Development Authority …Respondent JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 12.09.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes/No marked to Law Reports/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship wish : Yes/No to see the fair copy of judgment _________________________________

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________

VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVLI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No. 76 of 2013 % 12.09.2025 Between :

# M.M. Rehaman … Appellant AND $ Hyderabad Urban Development Authority …Respondent ! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri D. Jagadeshwar Rao ^ Counsel for Respondent : Sri V. Narsimha Goud, Standing Counsel for HMDA < GIST :

> HEAD NOTE : ? Cases referred :

1. (1991) 1 SCC 212 2. (1996) 6 SCC 530 3. (1979) 3 SCC 489

4.(1975) 1 SCC 70

5. (2020) 17 Supreme Court Cases 260 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVLI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No. 76 of 2013 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy This Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.03.2013 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned judgment’) passed in O.S. No. 341 of 2006 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as ‘trial Court’), wherein the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of money was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the plaint averments are that on the application filed by the plaintiff to the defendant, the plaintiff was permitted to participate in the auction to purchase a Plot at HUDA Heights, Banjara Hills. Accordingly, the plaintiff was declared eligible and allotted a plot admeasuring 823.5 square meters for a sale consideration of Rs.31,78,710/- @

Rs.3,860/- per square meter. In pursuance of confirmation –cum- provisional allotment letter, dated 11.03.1996, the plaintiff paid Rs.7,94,678/-, which was acknowledged by the defendant. Out of the three instalments that were to be paid by the plaintiff towards balance sale consideration, the plaintiff paid only two instalments but did not pay the third instalment as the basic amenities and infrastructural facilities were not completed by the defendant. The plot owners of HUDA Heights formed an association in the name and style of ‘HUDA Heights and Enclave Plot Owners Association’ and made repeated requests to provide amenities and facilities but the defendant did not accede to the same. In the meanwhile, the defendant issued a letter to the plaintiff for payment of third instalment with interest @ 24% per annum or else the allotment would be cancelled. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid Rs.24,00,000/- on 02.01.2002 with interest @ 24% per annum. Subsequently the plaintiff came to know that the Government of Andhra Pradesh through the Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department considered the request for charging simple interest @ 13.5% on the balance instalment from the date of providing basic amenities such as electricity, roads, water and sewerage to the lay-out and passed an order dated 04.09.2001 vide letter bearing No.30408/1/98/MA and duly communicated the same to the defendant. It was made clear in the order that the said scheme is applicable for the plot owners who have not paid full amount and interest and that the same is not applicable to the plot owners who have paid full amount and that there shall be no refund. However, the defendant kept the said order in