Dismissed¶46

M/s. Ramanajaneya Lorry Service v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructural Corporation

Telangana HC4 Aug 2025WP/32108/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TSIIC/T-GIIC industrial plot allotment cancellation; extension of time process fee 42% (3% per year x 14 years); Allotment Regulations 2012 penalty 3% of land cost for 2 years; Government Memo No.1080/IP&INF/A2/2021 dated 04.05.2021 uniform extension penalty (3% SME / 4% MSME / 5% large scale); Agreement-of-Sale Doc No.2381 of 2008; Plot Nos.27-28, IP Kodad, Dorakunta Village, Nalgonda; Article 226 writ dismissed without costs; Telangana High Court, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, 04.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the Writ Petition was dismissed without costs and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed. ¶46

M/s. Ramanajaneya Lorry Service Vs Telangana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Writ Petition was dismissed without costs and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-Corporation had power or authority to levy process fee for extension of time @3% per year of extension for 14 years (i.e., 42%), when the Allotment Regulations, 2012 stipulate a penalty of only 3% of the land cost for 2 years. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

As recorded by the Court, the Government of Telangana (Industries and Commerce (IP & INF)) Department Memo No.1080/IP&INF/A2/2021 dated 04.05.2021, point 'c', prescribed a uniform system for extension of time, levying a penalty of 3% for SME, 4% for MSME and 5% for Large Scale Industries for every year of extension beyond the stipulated/extended period in all cases.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner having failed to implement the project even after 13 long years from the date of allotment, and having failed to pay the process fee of Rs.48,73,730 along with restoration process fee of Rs.1,16,041 @42% for 14 years as per the Government Memo dated 04.05.2021, the respondent-Corporation was constrained to cancel the allotment.

¶41

Key takeaways

The petitioner was aware that extension of time was made subject to a rate of process fee of 3% per year extended up to 14 years (14 years x 3% = 42%) as stipulated in the respondent's letter dated 09.08.2023, and failed to comply with that condition; hence the Court found no reason to set aside the impugned order issued by the respondent-Corporation.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) by an industrial allottee challenging TSIIC letter Lr.No.3037/M/NLG/IP/Kdd/2007 dated 09.08.2023 demanding Rs.49,89,771/- as process fee for extension of time — computed at 3% of land cost per year for 14 years (42%) — and consequently questioning the cancellation of his allotment (letter dated 13.08.2020) of Plot Nos.27 and 28, IP Kodad (2000 sq.mts., Sy.No.248 Part, Dorakunta Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District) as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A. Held, dismissing the petition without costs: the petitioner, allotted the plot under Agreement-of-Sale (Doc. No.2381 of 2008) on payment of Rs.5,00,000/-, failed to implement the project even after 13 years and failed to pay process fee of Rs.48,73,730 plus restoration process fee of Rs.1,16,041 @42% for 14 years as per Government Memo dated 04.05.2021 prescribing a uniform annual extension penalty of 3% (SME), 4% (MSME) and 5% (Large Scale Industries); the petitioner was aware of the 42% condition and failed to comply, so no ground existed to set aside the impugned order.

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ I

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE^{FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO: 32108 OF 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Ramanajaneya^{LorryServtce,} Bgp 9y^{KondaLaxmaiahS/oGopaiah} Agea ab.ri 58 y"ir.,il.i^{Br.,n"tt R/o ' t-i ruo' 6-3-92/8,Ramgiri Nalgonda} District - 508001

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Telanoana State^{lndustrrallnfrastructural Corporation'ZonalOfficeYadadri} Zone 508 116^{Rep. by rts Zonal Nrlanager}

¶12

...RESPONOENTS

¶13

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constrtutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith'the HighCourt may be} pleasedtoissueanappropriateWrit'orderordirectionmoreparticularlyonein the nature of^{Writ of['4andamusdeclaring theLetter Lr'No'} 3037/M/NLG/|P^{tKddtlooT dated 9t August2023 issuedby the Respondent} corporation^{in seeking to dcmandextensionof timeprocessfee for a sumof} Rs.49,89,771 as^{being arbrtrary and contrary to the terms of the AgreementOf} Sale dated 7th^{March 2023 videDocument Number 2381 of 2008 and also the} AllotmentRegulatlons'2012a^dConsequentlyalsodeclaretheLetterdatedl3th August2020wideLr.No3o37/N,4iNLG/lP/Kdd/200TissuedbytheRespondent corporation in^{seeking to cancel the allotmentof subjectlandin favourof the} PetitionerasbeingarbitraryandContrarytotheprovisionsofArticle-14,19'300. A of Constitution^{Of lndiaand consequently set as{de the same-}

¶14

tA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶15

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.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.VENKATARAMANATAH

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.SRIKANTH REDDY (SC FOR TGIIC) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.321O8 OF 2023

¶20

ORDER:-

¶21

1 . This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue Wnt of Mandamusdeclaring the action of respondent Corporationⁱⁿ 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^{peacefulpossessionand} enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of^{subject property} admeasuring 2OO0 Sq.mts, situated in Plot^{No.27and 2a, IP,} Kodad, located in Sy.No.248, Part o[ Dorakunta^{Village,Kodad} Mandal, Nalgonda District-

¶22

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.

¶23

The case of the petitioner, in brief.^{is that the petitionerwas} allotted with a land admeasuring^2OOOSq- 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}

¶24

¶25

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 vicie Lr.No.3037/l{/NLG/tPlKdd/2OO7, dated 13.08.2020 canceiling

¶26

¶27

wP 32108 2423

¶28

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.

¶29

¶30

ttiz 2210A 2023

¶31

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.

¶32

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

NBKJ wP 321A6²⁰²³

) I

allotment letter issued to the petitioner vide

¶37

Lr. No. 3037 / M / NLG/^{IPl Kdd} I^{2OO7, datedI 3'08' 2020'}

¶38

7 . A perusal of the^{point 'c' of the Memo issued by the} Government of^{Telangana Industries and Commerce(lP &INF)} Department^{vide MemoNO.lO8O/IP&INF/A2/2O21-2'daLed} 04 .O5.2O21 , clearly^{discloses that the Governmenthas issued} certain instructions^{to follow a uniformsystem of extensionof time} r.vhich is as follows:-

¶39

¶40

"c. to leuy a penaltg^{of 3 o/o} for^{SME, 4% MSME and 5% for} Large Scale Industies for^{euerygear of ertensionbegond the} stipuLated./ ertended^{peiod in all coses'"}

¶41

[n the case on^{hand,as the petitioner failed to implementthe} 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 for14 years as per the} Cor,ernmentMemodated04.oS.2o2|,therespondent-Corporation u.as constrained^{to cancel the allotment of the petitioner'Evenas} per the letter Lr.No.3O37 /MrINLG /IP /Kddl2OO7^{dated O9 O8 2O23} issued by the^{respondentto the petitioner,it was statcd that the} petitioner's request for^{extension of time for implementationof} project will be considered^{subject to certain terms and conditions'} one of u,hich^{is with regardto Rate of processfee rvhich is 37o for}

¶42

¶43

wP 321C8 2023

¶44

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 Hence, this Court does not find any reason to set-aside the rmpugned order issued by the respondent Corporatlon.

¶45

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.

¶46

In the result, the Writ petition is dismissed without costs.

¶47

11 Miscell:r.neous petitions pcnding, if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

S T. SRIN]VASA REDDY IfTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 One CC to SRt K VENKATARATVANATAH, Advocate. [OPUC]

¶53

2 One CC to SRt M.SR|KANTH REDDY, SC FOR TSilC. tOpUCl J Two CD Copies

BSK

GJP

Yt-

HIGH COURT

DATEDi04lAA2025

./. I
7.5 ltP nn
.
' 'i,),,,'

¶60

ORDER

¶61

WP.No.321AB o12023

¶62

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

6r"s.a rt- _ f,+as

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Letter Lr.No.3037/M/NLG/IP/Kdd/2007 dated 09.08.2023 issued by the respondent-Corporation considering the petitioner's request for extension of time but demanding Rs.49,89,771/- towards process fee (3% of land cost per year extended up to 14 years, i.e., 42%), contrary to the Allotment Regulations, 2012 according to the petitioner.¶28
Respondent-Corporation (Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation) · 09.08.2023
Prior proceeding
Petitioner allotted 2000 sq.mts. in Plot Nos.27 and 28, IP, Kodad, Sy.No.248 Part, Dorakunta Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District for a repair workshop (lorry body, trailer and tractor works) through Agreement-of-Sale registered as Document No.2381 of 2008; physical possession handed over on 13.03.2008 on payment of Rs.5,00,000/- as total sale consideration.¶25
Prior proceeding
Respondent-Corporation issued show-cause notices for non-implementation of the project (letters dated 07.01.20[illegible], 14.03.2016 and 15.05.2017); pursuant thereto petitioner sought one year's extension, and the Head Office communicated an EOT fee demand of Rs.95,014/- which went unpaid.¶25
Prior proceeding
Allotment cancelled vide Lr.No.3037/M/NLG/IP/Kdd/2007 dated 13.08.2020; petitioner directed to hand over vacant possession within 15 days and to execute a Deed of Cancellation of Agreement of Sale.¶28
Prior proceeding
By letter dated 08.05.2023 the respondent-Corporation unilaterally concluded that the petitioner was in violation of the Agreement-of-Sale and had failed to surrender vacant possession.¶28
Prior proceeding
By letter dated 17.07.2023 the respondent-Corporation stated that the petitioner was required to execute a Cancellation Deed of Agreement of Sale for refund of the land cost as per the Corporation's norms.¶28
Prior proceeding
Interim application IA No.1 of 2023 under Section 151 CPC seeking a direction that the respondent-Corporation not interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plot Nos.27 and 28, IP Kodad (2000 sq.mts., Sy.No.248 Part, Dorakunta Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District).¶15

M/s. Ramanajaneya Lorry Service v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructural Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Ramanajaneya Lorry Service v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructural Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Usata Enterprises Private Limited Vs the State of Telangana

M/s.Njr Constructions Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Ramco Parboiled Rice Mill Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

Hanuma Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Mohammed Amanullah Ghouri, Vs The State of Telangana

pagidipalli Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana