Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 4349
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ, G.M. Mohiuddin, J
M/s Incor Realty Projects – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos. 2926, 2928, 2929, 2930, 2931, 2932, 2933 and 2934 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Niranjan Reddy, N. Naveen Kumar, S. Sahil Reddy
For the Respondents: B. Narasimha Sharma, N. Praveen Reddy
The court permitted the withdrawal of writ petitions challenging provisional attachment orders under the Benami Act to allow the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the statutory adjudicating authority.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged show cause notices issued under Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as well as orders passed under Section 24(3) and Section 24(4)(a)(i) for the provisional attachment of properties, alleging they were illegal and without jurisdiction. The court noted that the matter had already been referred to the adjudicating authority under Section 24(5) of the Act. The primary issue was whether the petitioners should pursue their challenge through the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or through the statutory remedy provided under the Benami Act. The court observed that the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the petitions to approach the adjudicating authority for an expeditious decision. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the jurisdiction and legality of provisional attachment orders under the benami act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. withdrawal of writ petitions to seek remedy before the statutory adjudicating authority. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
COMMON ORDER:
Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents Sri N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners in W.P.Nos.2926, 2929, 2930, 2931, 2932 and 2933 of 2026 and Sri S. Sahil Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners in W.P. Nos.2928 and 2934 of 2026, virtually.
Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the State of Telangana represents Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. All these Writ Petitions are filed by the same petitioners assailing the show cause notices dated 14.08.2025 issued under Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Benami Act’); the orders dated 14.08.2025 passed under Section 24(3) of the Benami Act, and the orders dated 24.12.2025 passed under Section 24(4)(a)(i) of the Benami Act provisionally attaching the properties, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Benami Act.
3. The learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners has in course of submissions, questioned the assumption of jurisdiction by the Initiating Officer under the Benami Act against the petitioners inter alia on a number of grounds both on fact and in law based on legal provisions and factual foundation involved in the instant Writ Petitions.
4. On behalf of the respondent department, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India strongly contested the plea with elaborate reference to the order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the Initiating Officer and submitted that all the necessary ingredients for invoking the provisions of the Benami Act are available. He has also taken a plea that the statute provides a remedy where the petitioners may raise all such grounds.
5. The learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners therefore upon instructions seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the instant Writ Petitions in order to approach the adjudicating authority to whom the matter has already been referred under Section 24(5) of the Benami Act on 27.01.2026. He submits that the adjudicating authority may be directed to decide the issue within a reasonable time.
6. Having regard to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, permission to withdraw the instant Writ Petitions is accorded.
7. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Needless to say, the adjudicating authority would seek to decide the matter under reference as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
