M/s. Ramanajaneya Lorry Servtce v. Telanoana State lndustrral lnfrastructural Corporation' Zonal Office Yadadri

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filod in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondent corporation to not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the subject plot no. 27 and 28. lP. Kodad admeasuring 2000 square metres situate in Survey number 248 P arl of Dorakunta Village Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.VENKATARAMANATAH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.SRIKANTH REDDY (SC FOR TGIIC) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITION No.321O8 OF 2023 ORDER:- 1 . This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue Wnt of Mandamusdeclaring the action of respondent Corporation in issuing Lr.No.3037/M/NLG/IPlKdd/2OO7 dated 09.08.2023 demanding a sum of Rs.49,89,77 L for extension of time for payment of process fee as illegal, contraryto the terms of the Agreement of Sale dated 07.O3.2023 and also the Allotment Regulations, 2Ol2 and consequently to direct the respondent- Corporation not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of subject property admeasuring 2OO0 Sq.mts, situated in Plot No.27 and 2a, IP, Kodad, located in Sy.No.248, Part o[ Dorakunta Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District- 2- Heard Sri K.VenkataRamanaiah, learned counsel for [he petitioner as well as Sri M.Srikanth Redd-v, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondentCorporation- Perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief. is that the petitioner was allotted with a land admeasuring 2OOO Sq- mts. situated in Plot No.27 and 28, IP, Kodad, located in Sy-No.248, Part of Dorakunta Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District, for setting up of repair 2 Workshop for lorry body, Trailer and Tractor works unit, by the respondent/ (lorporation through an Agreeme nt-of-Sale vide registered document No.2381 of 2008 dated 07.03.2003 and the petitioner got handed over the physical possession of the said property on 13.O3.2008 by makirrg payment of Rs.5,00,0007,- to the res pondent/ Corporation towards total sale consideration. Since then. the petitioner has been enjoying peaceful possession of the subject property. Due to unexpected dangerous Cor.icl-19 pandemic, t he petitioner could not implement hrs project of carrying orrt repair '"vorks of Lorry Body Trailer and Tiactor_ Hence, the respondent-Corporation issued show callse notices to the petitiont:r r.ide ietters dated 07.Ol.2Al2, 14.03.2016 ancl

15.O5.2O17. Pursuant tc the said shovy cau:;e notices. the petitioner arldressed a letter to the respondent Corporation requesting e:tension of time for one year for implementation of ttre project- The tlead Office of respondent-Corporation has cor-rsidered the petitlone-''s request subject to pa5rment of trOT (Extension of f ime ) fee Q '->,oh on the prevailing land cost and issued a let tcr to tl-re pet.itioncr to that effect for pa5rment of Rs.95,O l.+/- for pa-r..ment of EOT but tl-re petitioner failed to make such paylnent within the stipulatt-.d time nor implemented the project. Hence, the respondent Corltoration passed orders Lr.No.3037/l\{/NLG/tPlKdd/2OO7, dated 13.08.2020 canceiling 3 wP 32108 2423 the allotment letter issued to the petitioner and requested to hand over the vacant possession of the subject property to the respondent within 15 days from the date of receipt of order and also directed to execute Deed of cancellation of Agreement of Sale failing which necessa-rJr action will be initiated as per the norms of the Corporation. Thereafter, on 08.05.2023, the respondent Corporation issued a letter unilaterally concluding that the petitioner is in violation of the terms of the Agreement-of-Sale and he atlegedly failed to surrender the vacant possession of the plot. ThereaJter, the petitioner submitted a request [etter dated

16.O5.2023 to the respondent-Corporation seeking exlension of time, but the respondent-Corporation, without considering the said request, issued a letter dated lL.O7.2023 stating that the petitioner is required to execute Cancellation Deed of Agreement of Sale for refund of the land cost as per norms of the Corporation. Subsequently, the petitioner again approachcd the respondent Corporation to consider his request and submitted that he rvas willing to pay a sum of Rs.95,014/ as per [he Allotrnent Regulations, 2Ol2 and the respondent-Corporation issued a letter dated O9.08.2OO3 considering the request of the petitioner for extension of time and also directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.49,89,771/-, which is contrary to the Allotment Regulations,

2012. 4 ttiz 2210A 2023

5. Learnt:d counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent-Corporation has no power or authoritlr to ievy process fee for extension of time Gu 42o/. i.e., 3%o for every l.ear of extension for i4 years. Even as per the Allotment Regulations, 2012, tine penalty for extension of tirne is stipulated to be only 3Zo of the land cost for 2 vears and hence, the action of respondent-Corporation to ler,y process fec (4 3.k of the land cost for every year for the last 14 years is untenable. There is no basis for levy of process fee (ti. 42ok under the Allotment Regulations, 2012. Hence, iiled the present Writ Petition sceking to set-aside the order passed by the respondenr Corporalion.

6. Per co:irra, iearneci counsel for the respondent_Corporation iried its co'dnrer contending that the ciemand of payment of amount towards process fee of Rs..18,73,730/- and restoration process fee of Rs.1,16,04 l/ i.i.42?6 for 14years is only as per the Government Memo dated 0+.05-202 1 and also as per the regulations of thc Corporation- It also contended that the petitioner, having obtained allotmer-rt of land in an industrial area, failed to obtain requrired approvais i.e., power suppiy, building plan, nor commenced the project. The petitioner had deprived another genuine entreprenellr for 17 long y,3ars b_v keeping the plot idle which resulted in loss of potential eltployrnent opportunities. Hence, cancelled the 5 NBKJ wP 321A6 2023 allotment letter issued the petitioner vide Lr. No. 3037 / M / NLG/ IPl Kdd I 2OO7, dated I 3'08' 2020' 7 . A perusal of the point 'c' of the Memo issued by the Government of Telangana Industries and Commerce (lP & INF) Department vide Memo NO.lO8O/IP & INF/A2/2O21-2' daLed 04 .O5.2O21 , clearly discloses that the Government has issued certain instructions to follow a uniform system of extension of time r.vhich is as follows:- "c. to leuy a penaltg of 3 o/o for SME, 4% MSME and 5% for Large Scale Industies for euery gear of ertension begond the stipuLated./ ertended peiod in all coses'" [n the case on hand, as the petitioner failed to implement the

8. project even after 13 long years from the date of aliotrnent and also failed to pay the process fee of Rs'48,73,73O along with restoration process fee of Rs.1,16,O41 @ 42"k for 14 years as per the Cor,ernmentMemodated04.oS.2o2|,therespondent-Corporation u.as constrained to cancel the allotment of the petitioner' Even as per the letter Lr.No.3O37 /MrINLG /IP /Kddl2OO7 dated O9 O8 2O23 issued by the respondent to the petitioner, it was statcd that the petitioner's request for extension of time for implementation of project will be considered subject to certain terms and conditions' one of u,hich is with regard to Rate of process fee rvhich is 37o for ) I l 6 wP 321C8 2023 every year, exrended upto 14 years i.e., 14 years x 3ok=42yo Hence, the petitioner is aware of the said condition imposed by the respondent -Corporation and failed to comply with the same find any reason to set-aside the Hence, this Court does not rmpugned order issued by the respondent Corporatlon. 9 ' In view of the foregoing discr-rssion, this court finds no merit in the Writ Pctition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. In the result, the Writ petition is dismissed without costs. 11 Miscell:r.neous petitions pcnding, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S T. SRIN]VASA REDDY IfTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J One CC to SRt K VENKATARATVANATAH, Advocate. [OPUC] One CC to SRt M.SR|KANTH REDDY, SC FOR TSilC. tOpUCl Two CD Copies BSK GJP Yt- ./. I

7.5 ltP nn . ' 'i,),,,' HIGH COURT DATEDi04lAA2025 ORDER WP.No.321AB o12023 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6r"s.a rt- _ f,+as