Telangana High Court
M/S.Brilliant Bio Pharma Ltd vs State Of Telangana., Municipal ... on 10 March, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
********
WRIT PETITION NOs.27374 & 30563 OF 2014
W.P.No.27374 of 2014:
Between:
M/s.Brilliant Bio Pharma Ltd.,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
.... Petitioner
and
State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary,
Municipal Admn. & Urban Development Dept.,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and two others.
.... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 10.03.2026
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : No
may be allowed to see the Judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
__________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J
2
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
+ WRIT PETITION NOs.27374 & 30563 OF 2014
%10.03.2026
Between:
# M/s.Brilliant Bio Pharma Ltd.,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
.... Petitioner
Vs.
$ State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary,
Municipal Admn. & Urban Development Dept.,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and two others.
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner(s) : Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. J.Srinadh Reddy, for
petitioners in both the writ petitions
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. V.Siddhartha Goud,learned counsel
representing Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned
Standing Counsel for HMDA in both the writ
petitions.
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2006 SCC Online AP 909
2010 SCC Online AP 1198
(2018) 6 SCC 410
AIR 1967 SC 1910
3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NOs.27374 & 30563 OF 2014
DATE: 10.03.2026
W.P.No.27374 of 2014:
Between:
M/s.Brilliant Bio Pharma Ltd.,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
.... Petitioner
and
State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary,
Municipal Admn. & Urban Development Dept.,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and two others.
.... Respondents
COMMON ORDER:
The above said writ petitions are arising out of the very same property and between the same parties and the reliefs claimed in both the writ petitions are inter-connected with each other and accordingly the said writ petitions heard together analogously and have been decided by this common order and the W.P.No.27374 of 2014 is taken as lead and comprehensive writ petition to answer all 4 the issues which also covers the consequential issue in W.P.No.30563 of 2014.
WP No.27374 of 2014:
2. The instant writ petition has been filed declaring the notice issued by the respondent vide proceedings bearing No.11172/ EMU/HMDA/09, dated 09.09.2014, in respect of petitioner's property, admeasuring Acs.3.12 guntas, situated in Sy.No.775 of Shamsabad village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, to set aside the same.
WP No.30563 of 2014:
3. The instant writ petition has been filed declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in rectifying the mistake committed in the Conveyance deed bearing document No.1365/2011, dated 19.05.2011, executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner, despite the representation being made dated 26.08.2014, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to forthwith rectify 5 the mistakes that have crept in the conveyance deed vide document No.1365/2011, dated 19.05.2011.
4. The brief facts of the case in W.P.No.27374 of 2014 are that, the petitioner's company, earlier was known as 'Brilliant Industries Limited,' and that Brilliant Industries Ltd., was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.3.11 guntas, situated in Sy.Nos.31, 32, 34, 35 and 38 of Tondupalli Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same in the year 1998 vide a registered sale deed from its original pattadar for a valid sale consideration. The petitioner contends though the land along with other adjacent land was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of formation of Outer Ring Road (ORR) Project, that they were unaware of any proceedings initiated under the then Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of the other lands along with the petitioner's land to an extent Acs.3.11 guntas, and the petitioner came to know of the said acquisition only after passing of the award and the reference being made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the competent Court and the petitioner was 6 constrained to file W.P.Nos.27089 and 27399 of 2006 before this Court.
5. It is stated that the very purchasing of the said land was for the purpose of establishing a star hotel industry or appropriate business as the Government policy was also to encourage the industries and lieu of that the Industries Department granted several incentives. Further, since the land of the petitioner was at the proximity of the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport at Shamshabad and it was feasible for the purpose of construction of a hotel. It is contended that by the said acquisition, the petitioner was deprived of many incentives given by the Industries Department and by virtue of the acquisition, petitioner approached the Government and filed a detailed representation by bringing to knowledge of the then Government dated 15.12.2008 and after several correspondences and lot of exercise, the Government after getting appropriate remarks from the Project Director and Special Collector, ORR along with the Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Hyderabad (HMDA), based on the separate reports dated 11.08.2009 and 08.04.2010 of the said authorities respectively to the 7 Government vide the said reports, the Commissioner, HMDA has reported that the land in Sy.No.775, which belonged to erstwhile HUDA and the same is in the possession of HMDA which is also free from all encumbrances can be allotted to the petitioner in lieu of the land and accordingly, recommended for handing over the said land in favour of the petitioner in lieu of the compensation for the acquired lands for the purpose of ORR project, subject to withdrawal of W.P.Nos.27089 and 27399 of 2006. Further, it is stated that the said land is covered under G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 08.03.1996, where polluting/potential polluting establishments are prohibited.
6. After considering the issue, the Government in exercise of its executive powers, issued an executive fiat vide G.O.Ms.No.269 MA & UD (I) Department, dated 30.06.2010, whereby and where under, the Government acceded to the representation of the petitioner and in lieu of compensation for the land which fell for exercising is eminent domain power, the land belonging to HMDA in Sy.No.775 of Shamshabad Village and Mandal, to an equal extent of Acs.3.12 guntas was allotted to the petitioner, and however, the matter was placed before the Cabinet for its approval and after approval from 8 the Cabinet, the Government Order has been issued and pursuant to the Government decision, the HMDA and has issued a proceedings vide No.LA/ORR/Unit-1/19/74/2005, dated 10.05.2011, in pursuance of the Government Order dated 30.06.2010 for allotting the land in Sy.No.775 to an equal extent of Acs.3.12 guntas situated in Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the petitioner and that subsequent thereupon, it is stated that the HMDA has executed a registered Conveyance Deed vide Document No.1365 of 2011 dated 19.05.2011 duly registering the said land before the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad. Further, in pursuance of the execution of said conveyance deed, the physical possession was handed to the petitioner under the cover of panchanama dated 01.06.2011 and that by virtue of the said conveyance deed, the petitioner has acquired right, title and interest along with possession over the said land in Sy.No.775 admeasuring Acs.3.12 guntas in Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and consequently, the writ petitions were withdrawn by the petitioner on 07.06.2010.9
7. However, in the meanwhile the said allotment of land to the petitioner was questioned by way of a Probono litigation in PIL No.346 of 2012 and pursuant to the filing of counter-affidavit by the HMDA as well as the State, the said PIL was withdrawn by the petitioner on 05.06.2013 and the quantum of compensation which was deposited in the competent Court for the land of the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act was withdrawn by the Government as the alternate land was granted in favour of petitioner. In pursuance of the same, compromise entered before the Lok-Aalath, Ranga Reddy District, and the said conveyance deed was fortified even in the Lok-Adalath award and that the petitioner was acquired absolute ownership rights over the land in Sy.No.775 admeasuring Acs.3.12 guntas situated in Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by virtue of the said conveyance deed executed by the HMDA and the directions of the Government.
8. Now peculiarly and surprisingly the HMDA i.e. the respondent No.3, after the execution of the conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner, has issued the impugned show-cause notice bearing No.11172/EMU/HMDA/09 dated 09.09.2014, which was 10 served upon the petitioner on 31.09.2014 and by the said impugned show-cause notice, the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why the allotment of land made in their favour, in contravention of the standing orders, to an extent of Acs.3.12 guntas in Sy.No.775 of HMDA layout at Shamshabad Village and Mandal Ranga Reddy District, should not be cancelled, thereby the explanation was within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Further, the main ground for issuance of the said show-cause notice was that G.O.Ms.No.269 dated 30.06.2010 relates to only one case i.e., of M/s.Brilliant Bio Pharma Limited and the said G.O., is not in conformity with the spirit of G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 18.12.2006, which was issued after detailed deliberation and taking advantage of the allotment made in favour of M/s. Brilliant Bio Pharma Limited, the other awardees are also requesting to allow the alternate land in lieu of acquired land for formation of ORR, thus the said allotment is sought tobe cancelled and that the said show-cause notice is impugned in the Writ Petition No.27374 of 2014.
9. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, representing Mr. J.Srinadh Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners on 11 record in both the writ petitions, and Mr. V.Siddharth Goud, learned counsel representing Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA in both the writ petitions, and having given earnest consideration to their submissions, this Court perused the material on record.
10. Evidently, the land of the petitioner to an extent of Acs.3.12 guntas at Tondupally Village, Shamshabad Mandal was acquired for the purpose of formation of ORR by the then HUDA and that subsequently, basing upon the writ petitions filed before this Court in W.P.Nos.27089 and 27399 of 2006, the case of the writ petitioner was examined by the then Government, after due deliberations and several correspondences, basing upon the representation made by the writ petitioner for allotment of an alternate land was considered by the Government and only after approval from the Cabinet, the Government Orders were issued directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to allot alternate land in Sy.No.775 to an equal extent of Acs.3.12 guntas, situated at Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in lieu of the compensation to be paid for acquisition of the land of the petitioner. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have 12 issued proceedings bearing No.LA/ORR/Unit-1/19/74/2005 dated 10.05.2011 in pursuance of the Government Sub-Committee decision and the said land in Sy.No.775 has been conveyed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents vide conveyance deed document No.1365/ 2011, dated 19.05.2011 and physical possession of the said land was also handed over to the petitioner vide panchanama 01.06.2011.
11. In the light of said developments presumably and evidently the writ petitioner has acquired absolute ownership and possessionary right over the land to an extent of Acs.3.12 guntas in Sy.No.775 situated Shamshabad village. Further, having delivered the physical possession of the said land vide panchanama dated 01.06.2011, now the 2nd and 3rd respondents are estopped from depriving the petitioner to enjoy the said land with absolute ownership rights and propose to cancel the said allotment. Further, the careful reading of the impugned show-cause notice dated 09.09.2014, which is for better understanding extracted as under:
"It is observed that G.O.Ms.No.269 dated 30.06.2010 relates to only one case i.e., of M/s. Brilliant Bio Pharma Limited. The G.O., is not in conformity with the spirit of G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006, which was issued after 13 detailed deliberation. Taking precedence of the allotment made in favour of M/s. Brilliant Bio Pharma Limited, the other awardees are requesting to allot the alternate land in lieu of acquired lands for formation of outer ring road."
12. Evidently, the impugned show-cause notice is issued on the ground that similarly situated persons are also claiming the right of granting an alternate land as a vested right under the said G.O., which has allotted the said land to the petitioner in lieu of the land acquired from him for formation of ORR, Hyderabad, and in that view of the matter, the allotment of land granted in favour of the writ petitioner cannot be altered or changed or interfered. If any other person or persons, who are similarly situated persons, request for claim of benefit taking cue from the said G.O., the said representations have to be dealt independently and that the said ground for issuance of show-cause notice appears to be totally under misconception of facts and law. Every case has got a different and distinct facts and circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner for allotment of alternate land was verified by the then Government i.e., 1st respondent and after following the due process and also after Cabinet approval only, the alternate land was granted. 14
13. In Yanala Malleshwari and others vs. Smt. Ananthula Sayamma and others 1, the Larger Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, held as under:
"113. The purpose of noting down these provisions of TP Act and the Registration Act is to come to a conclusion as to whether a vendor retains any interest in the property which he sold and of which a sale deed was executed and registered. The answer is emphatic 'no'. Therefore, in my view, when a person transfers all his rights, his rights in the property get extinguished and if he tries to get back the property, it has to be done by challenging the sale deed which he has executed and which is registered by the Sub- Registrar."
14. In M/s. A.B.C. India Limited and others v. The A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and others2, the learned single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, held as under:
"20. Thus when transfer is completed (on execution of sale deed in case of immovable property) any restriction contained in the transfer deed disentitling the transferee from operating or disposing of his interest would be void and even when such a restriction is created, transferee can enjoy the property ignoring the same. In view of Section 4 of TP Act, all the provisions relating to contracts shall apply to TP Act and, therefore, any transfer or conveyance incorporating 1 2006 SCC Online AP 909 2 2010 SCC Online AP 1198 15 restraint clauses would be void and the purchaser can ignore such clauses.
21. In case of contract of sale of immovable property, Section 55 of TP Act dealing with rights and liabilities of buyer and seller governs and when the buyer discharges obligations and the seller passes/conveys the ownership of property the contract is concluded. The liabilities, obligations and rights if any between the buyer and seller after execution of sale deed would be governed by other provisions of Contract Act and Specific Relief Act as referred to infra and the seller cannot unilaterally cancel the conveyance or sale."
15. In Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and others v. S.N.Raj Kumar and another3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"16. ....
S.11. Restriction repugnant to interest created.--Where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created absolutely in favour of any person, but the terms of the transfer direct that such interest shall be applied or enjoyed by him in a particular manner, he shall be entitled to receive and dispose of such interest as if there were no such direction.
Where any such direction has been made in respect of one piece of immovable property for the purpose of securing the beneficial enjoyment of another piece of such property, nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any right which the transferor may have to enforce such direction or any remedy which he may have in respect of a breach thereof.
17. Section 55 of the Act deals with rights and liabilities of buyer and seller. As per this provision, when the buyer discharges obligations and seller passes/conveys the ownership of the property, the contract 3 (2018) 6 SCC 410 16 is concluded. Thereafter, the liabilities, obligations and rights, if any, between the buyer and seller would be governed by other provisions of the Contract Act and the Specific Relief Act, on the execution of the sale deed. The seller cannot unilaterally cancel the conveyance or sale."
16. In the instant case, the property has already been conveyed in favour of the petitioners and thus, the respondents have already ceased to be the owners of the land. As such, they cannot now turn back and propose to cancel the conveyance deed, and the appropriate remedy available to them is to approach the competent civil Court and avail the common law remedies available under law.
17. On the contrary, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 being instrumentalities of the Government, are bound to follow dictum of the 1st respondent-Government and more so, when a Cabinet approval for allotment of alternate land to the petitioner was sought and approved, the respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the statutory authorities have implemented it and contrary to the same, the impugned notice dated 09.09.2014 is issued. It is trite law that the directions of the Government are binding on the statutory authorities and when the authority acts on administrative control, the authority functions as an arm of the executive and the 17 Government dicta is binding as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others 4. The statutory authority on administrative side cannot alter the decision of the Government, more so, when the conveyance deed is executed, the authorities have to approach common law remedies by approaching the competent Civil Court seeking cancellation of the conveyance deed, and in that view of the matter, in considered view of this Court, the impugned show-cause notice dated 09.09.2014 is ex facie illegal and arbitrary, void ab initio and violative of the settled principles of law. Thus, the impugned show-cause notice is liable to be set aside and quashed.
18. In the above stated findings arrived by this Court, the impugned show-cause notice vide No.11772/EMU/HMDA/09, dated 09.09.2014 is hereby set aside and quashed and the writ petitioner is at liberty to deal with the property with all absolute ownership right without there being any letter from the respondent authorities.
4 AIR 1967 SC 1910 18 W.P.No.30563 of 2014:
19. Insofar as the prayer in W.P.No.30563 of 2014 is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Alladi Ravinder would contend that there was a small mistake crept in the conveyance deed, wherein the description of the vendee name was erroneously mentioned as 'Sri R.Madan Mohan Rao, S/o. late Sri Sheshagiri Rao, aged 63 years, Executive Director, Brilliant Bio-Pharma Limited/Brilliant Industries limited, R/o.9-84, Panduranganagar, Hyderabad'. However, the actual nomenclature should have been 'Brilliant Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad, represented by its Executive Director, Mr. R.Madan Mohan Rao', and it is stated that a detailed representation dated 26.08.2014 has been filed before the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
20. In the light of the above, the respondents are hereby directed to examine the said representation, and if so required, and intended by the petitioner, shall consider the representation dated 26.08.2014 forthwith and execute a rectification deed, duly correcting the mistake crept in the conveyance deed bearing document No.1365, dated 19.05.2011.
19
21. In view of the same, the W.P.No.30563 of 2014 is disposed of accordingly.
22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.27374 of 2014 is allowed and the W.P.No.30563 of 2014 is disposed of in terms of the above stated directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO,J Date: 10.03.2026 kkm 20 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.27374 & 30563 OF 2014 Date: 10.03.2026 kkm