M/s. Chaitanya Cement Pipe Company, Vs The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal

¶1

[^32s21

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD^{DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTIG SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13368^{OF 2017}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Chaitanya Cement^{Pipe Company, Repre.s-entedby^itsManagingPgtlgr} Raiesh Shinde S/o. S.Dattbtreya,^{aged about 48 years, Officeat No.23-5-795,} Na'oulchinta Shahali^{Banda, Hyderabad-65. Having lndustrialUnit in Plot} ruo."22 to 32 At lP Palem^{Village, Biienepally Mandal, MahaboobnagarDistrict.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana Represented^{by its Principal, Secretary,lndustries} and Commerce Dep-artment,^{Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad-4.}

¶12

The Telangana Siate Industrial^{lnfrastructural Corporation, L-ld,} -(Govt.^of Telanqana-State Undertaking)^{Shamshabad Zone, Opp R.S.F.Pand D,} Srisaii-am Road, Pahadishareef,^{Via Keshavagiri Post, Hyderabad-s00005.}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of^the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat 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^CERTIORARIto 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, PalemVillage,} Bijenepally Mandal, the and then^{tVlahaboobnagardistrict, nowNagarkurnool} District within 15 days and also^stated the^{cancellationof allotment and} possession of the premises and also calling upon to^pay mesne^profit and^declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, against^{the provisionsof the Specific ReliefAct,} lndian Contract Act, against^{the principlesof naturaljustice and in violation of} Article 300^(A) of the Constitution^{of lndia}

IIIfr

n o e, {}tl v t)

r'

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(VVPMP. NO: 16593 OF 20171

¶19

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

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SURESH SHIV SAGAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDy, SC FOR TSIC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

$I

¶24

/
/,,

¶25

HON'BLE MRS ]USTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶26

rilltillrlL

¶27

WRIT PETITIoN No.1 3 68 of 20 L7

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard Sri Suresh^{Shiva Sagar, learnedcounsel} appearing on behalf^{of the petitaoner,learned Government} Pleader for Industries^{appearingon behalf of respondent} No.1 and Sri L. Prabhakar^{Reddy, learned Standing} Counsel for TSIIC, appearing^{on behalf of respondent} No.2.

¶30

2 The petitaoner approached^{the Court seeking prayer}

¶31

as under:

¶32

-lr'

¶33

"...to issue an order or^{orders one in the nature of WRIT} OF CERTIORARI to^{quashthe impugned notice in Lr' No'} 4383/RO/IDA/P/84/459^{dated 28-3-2017passedby 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, BijenepallyMandal 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 profitand declarethe same} as illegal, arbitrary^{against the provisions of the Specific} Relief Act, Indian Contract^{Act against the principlesof}

¶34

il rl

¶35

2 wP 13368 2017

¶36

natural^justice and in violation of Article 300 A of lfiifrlillltl the Constitution of India and to pass...".

¶37

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.

¶38

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:

¶39

"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

¶40

lrilT[|

¶41

sNl J wP 13368 2017

¶42

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.

¶43

iI ltul

¶44

In reply to para 10 and the^{groundsmentioned} thereunder, it is submitted that the^{petitionerwithout} challenging the cancellation of the allotment^{order dated21-} 05-2011, has chosen only to challenge the^{consequential} notice of handing over^{possessiondated 28-03-2017and} therefore the present W. P. is not^{maintainable in law and} liable to be dismissed.

¶45

13 It is submitted that the^{petitioner who has agreedfor the} terms and conditions of the allotment^{regulationsand in} view of concluded contract between the^parties,the petitioner cannot be allowed to turn round and approach this Hon'ble Court under equitable^{jurisdictionby way} of^filling present W.P. in an improper manner without approaching the civil court for adjudication of the disputed^{questions of} facts.

¶46

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 retiredand} continued by the remaining^partners. Thereafter on 01-041992, 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

l[]

4

l l

wP t3168 2017

partners were made without obtaining any approval from the Corpc,ration ".

¶52

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.

¶53

6. Takin o into consideration:

¶54

(a) Tlre submissions made by the learned counsel

¶55

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behall of the 2nd respond ent,

¶56

(b) The submissions made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2,

¶57

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

¶58

)

¶59

II

¶60

) wP r3368 2017SN,J the Zonal Manager, APIICLTD and the petitioner had not chosen to challenge the sajd proceedings as on

¶61

rui

¶62

date.

¶63

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. SD/-N.SRIHAFII ASSISTANT REGISTRAIT //TRUE COPY// 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 BM til KKS Kp rl

n
I nlil
i

\

ill

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310112025

,3 1 J f,l 14,
-< J
t,
05 i;.'n 2025
t\e
:a>2
*
\r.'
I a -.t
A1 c