Hyderabad:Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court directed the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) to refund an amount of over ₹200 crore with 18% interest in connection with an e-auction of government land in Budvel village. The judge was dealing with writ petitions filed by Bhagwati Devi Baldwa and M/s My Home Infrastructure Private Limited who alleged that the HMDA failed to disclose the existence of pending litigation or the court’s interim order during the auction or before collecting their payments. They argued that the concealment was deliberate and amounted to unfair dealing, especially since the promise of litigation-free land was a fundamental term of the auction. The controversy arose from an e-auction notification issued by the HMDA on August 4, 2023, offering 17 open plots for sale with a declared assurance that the lands were “100% encumbrance-free.” As per the terms, participants were required to make a substantial earnest money deposit and pay the full consideration in two instalments. Crucially, the notification assured buyers that the ownership and the title were clear, and that sale deeds would be executed after receiving full payment. Following the auction held on August 10, 2023, two companies emerged as the highest bidders for Plot No. 14 and Plot No. 15. The petitioner successfully bid for Plot No. 14, paying a total of ₹206.88 crore, while M/s My Home Infrastructure Private Limited secured Plot No. 15 for ₹298.93 crore. Both companies made the required payments within the stipulated time frame, and the HMDA issued pre-final allotment letters confirming full payment. However, the petitioners later discovered that a private entity had filed a writ petition in August 2023 — two days before the auction — claiming ownership of a portion of the land including parts of Plots 14 and 15. On August 9, 2023, a day before the auction, the Court passed an interim order allowing the auction to proceed but directed that any allotment of Plots 14 and 15 would be subject to the outcome of the pending writ petition. After learning of the pending litigation, both petitioners submitted multiple representations requesting a full refund with interest, citing the interim order. In its response, the HMDA raised preliminary objections, contending that the case was contractual in nature and thus not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. It further claimed that there was no deliberate suppression and that the interim order was received only after the letters of offer had already been issued. However, the judge dismissed these arguments, noting that the HMDA was represented through counsel at the hearing in August 2023, and had been informed of the court’s direction on the same day. The judge found the claim of ignorance unsustainable. The judge emphasised that when public authorities invite bids for high-value public assets, they are bound to act transparently and fairly. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the judge held that even contractual matters may be subject to judicial review under Article 226 when there is arbitrariness or a violation of Article 14. The judge ruled that the petitioners were entitled to rely on the government’s clear representation that the land was free from litigation. The failure to disclose the pending writ petition and the interim court order, issued a day before the auction, amounted to a serious lapse. The judge also noted that the HMDA’s internal communication showed it was aware of the court’s directions prior to issuing the offer letters.
Another habeas corpus for husband dismissed
A two-judge vacation panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed a habeas corpus writ petition seeking the production and release of a 75-year-old man allegedly confined by his son and first wife at their residence in Nizamabad. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda, was hearing the writ petition filed by Kaneej Fathima, the second wife of the alleged detenue. The petitioner alleged that her husband, Dr Khairath Pasha, was being illegally detained by his son and first wife at their residence in Vidyanagar, Nizamabad town and sought that he be produced before the court and set at liberty. On instructions, the state submitted that the alleged detenu voluntarily gave a statement to the police stating that he was staying of his own volition with his son and first wife, and that he was not under any illegal confinement. Taking note of the statement made by the alleged detenu, the panel observed that no case was made out for invoking the writ of habeas corpus. The panel noted that the detenu had neither raised any grievance nor expressed a desire to be removed from the custody of the respondents. Accordingly, the panel dismissed the writ petition, while granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue any other remedy available to her under law.
Techie accused for cheating woman given bail
Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda of the Telangana High Court, sitting in vacation court, granted bail to a software professional alleged of cheating under the pretext of marriage. The judge dealt with a criminal petition filed by Ratla Raju, who was in judicial custody since April 2025. As per the prosecution, the petitioner cheated the complainant under the pretext of marriage, had physical relations with her, took Rs 5 lakh from her through PhonePe, and later refused to marry her. The complaint was lodged after the engagement was fixed and the petitioner did not turn up for the engagement. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated and that even if the allegations were taken at face value, the ingredients of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha which provides for sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, were not made out. The counsel also contended that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. The judge observed that the petitioner was in judicial custody since April 2025, had no criminal antecedents, and that the investigation was in progress. Considering the facts and circumstances, the judge enlarged the petitioner on conditional bail.
