High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal, Secretary, lndustries and Commerce Dep-artment, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad-4. The Telangana Siate Industrial lnfrastructural Corporation, L-ld, -(Govt. Telanqana-State Undertaking) Shamshabad Zone, Opp R.S.F.P and D, Srisaii-am Road, Pahadishareef, Via Keshavagiri Post, Hyderabad-s00 005. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI to quash the impugned notice in Lr.No.43B3/ROllDAlPl84l459, dated'2B.3.2O17 passed by the 2nd respondent calling upon the petitioner to handover and vacate the possession of property of plot No.27 to 32 l.P. Palem, Palem Village, Bijenepally Mandal, the and then tVlahaboobnagar district, now Nagarkurnool District within 15 days and also stated the cancellation of allotment and possession of the premises and also calling upon to pay mesne profit and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, against the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, lndian Contract Act, against the principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 300 (A) of the Constitution of lndia r' l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(VVPMP. NO: 16593 OF 20171 IIIfr Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased t* direct the respondents 2 not to interfere into the peaceful possession of thc petitioner's property including dispossession of the petitioner in pursuance of th+ - impugned notice in Lr.No.43B3/ROllDAlPl84l459, dated:28.3.2017 in respect crf the petitione/s property plot No.27 to 32 l.P. Palem, Palem Vitlage, Bijenepally Mandal, the and then lr4ahaboobnagar district, now Nagarkurnool District, pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SURESH SHIV SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDy, SC FOR TSIC The Court made the following: ORDER n o e, {}- v t) $I / /,, HON'BLE MRS ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA rilltillrlL WRIT PETIT oN No.1 I 3 68 of 20 L7 ORDER: Heard Sri Suresh Shiva Sagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaoner, learned Government Pleader for Industries appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSIIC, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. 2 The petitaoner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: -lr' "...to issue an order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI to quash the impugned notice in Lr' No' 4383/RO/IDA/P/84/459 dated 28-3-2017 passed by the 2nd respondent calling upon the petitioner to ttandover and vacate the possession of property of plot Nos, 27 to 32 LP. Palem, Palem Village, Bijenepally Mandal the and then Mahaboobnagar District now Nagarkurnool District within 15 days and also stated the cancellation of allotment and possession of the premises and also calling upon to pay mesne profit and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary against the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, Indian Contract Act against the principles of il rl 2 wP 13368 2017 natural justice the Constitution and in violation of Article 300 A of of India and to pass...". lfiifrlillltl

3. The cas;e of the petitioners in brief is that respondent No.2 issued notice in Lr.No.4383/RO/IDA/P/84/459, dated 28.03.2017 calling upon the petitioner to handover ernd vacate the possession or property of Plot Nos.27 to 32 I.P. Palem, Palem-- -- Village, Bijenepally Mandal, the then Mahaboobnagar District now Nagarkurnool District and also for cancellation of allotment and possession of the said premises, which is against the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, and Indian Contract Act. Hence, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel aooearinq on behalf of resoondent No.2 places reliance on the counter affiflaylt_ltled_ !y respondent No.2, in oarticular oara Nos. l.O, 12, 13 and 14, which are extracted hereunder: "1O. In reply to para 7, it is submitted that without complying the agreed terms and conditions, the petitioner is not entitled for execution of the sale deed. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment and as per the conditions of the agreement, the petitioner is not entitled to seek registration by violating the conditions of the agreement who failed to implement the project withan stipulated time and lrilT[| J sNl wP 13368 2017 after cancellation of the allotment made as early as 21-05-2}lt. The said order of the cancellation has attained finality as the petitioner not chosen to challenge the same. Therefore. the claim of the petitioner for registering the sale deed is totally untenable.

12. In reply to para 10 and the grounds mentioned thereunder, it is submitted that the petitioner without challenging the cancellation of the allotment order dated 21- 05-2011, has chosen only to challenge the consequential notice of handing over possession dated 28-03-2017 and therefore the present W. P. is not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed. 13 It is submitted that the petitioner who has agreed for the terms and conditions of the allotment regulations and in view of concluded contract between the parties, the petitioner cannot be allowed to turn round and approach this Hon'ble Court under equitable jurisdiction by way of filling present W.P. in an improper manner without approaching the civil court for adjudication of the disputed questions of facts.

14. It is submitted that there were 11 partners as per the original registered partnership deed dated 30-06-1984. By virtue of partners ship deed dated 07-09-1989 there was a change in the partners as some of the partners retired and continued by the remaining partners. Thereafter on 01-04- 1992, it appears four more partners were retired and two new partners were added. Subsequently on 29-O7-1995 the original partners completely retired and only three new partners continued in the firm. The said changes in the iI l[] 4 wP t3168 2017 partners were made without obtaining any approval from the Corpc,ration ". l l

5. Learnecl counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 places reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 in particular para Nos.10, 12, 13 and t4 and contends that the present writ petition is noi maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner failed t,l challenge the cancellation of the allotment order dated 21.05.2011 and has chosen only to challenge the consequential notice of handing over possession dated 28.03.2017.

6. Takin o into consideration: (a) Tlre submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behall of the 2nd respond ent, (b) The submissions made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, This Court opines that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present rvrit petition in view of the fact that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 21.O5.2O11 of I I I ) wP r3368 2017 Zonal Manager, APIICLTD and the petitioner had not chosen to challenge the sajd proceedings as on date. SN,J

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs, The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-N.SRIHAFII ASSISTANT REGISTRAIT ECTION OFFICEIR To,

1. One CC to SRl. SURESH SHIV SAGAR, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMTUERCE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to SRl. L. PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR TSIIC [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies I I BM KKS Kp n I i \ 1,3J -< J f,l 14, t, t\e \r.' 05 i;.'n 2025 I a * -.t cA1 > 2 a: HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 ORDER WP.No.13368 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITI{OUT COSTS @ \