Dismissed

Vutukuri Pandu Rangam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Oct 2025WP/9161/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mutation and sub-division of an industrial plot purchased in 2015, applying from 2017 onwards without decision until a prior writ and contempt proceedings forced action. TSIIC's 2024 demand for sub-division charges plus GST at prevailing rates was challenged. The Court upheld the demand under TSIIC's 2017 revised guidelines and dismissed the writ.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vutukuri Pandu Rangam Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰¹

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:9161 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vutukuri Pandu Rangam, S/o. V.Venkaiah Aged. 52 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. H.No. -13-1-137, Vasavi Mansion, Motinagar, Hyderabad- 500 0'18

¶9

Kovuri Bhanu Prakash, S/o. Satyanarayana Aged. 39 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. 1-1 1-93, Golnaka Alwal, Secunderabad, Rep. By his SPA holder i,e. K.Satyanarayana S/o. K.Vishwanatham, Occ. Business, Rl/o.^'l -1 1-93, Golnaka Alwal' Secunderabad'

¶10

...pETrroNERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, lndustries and commerce Department Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

The Chairman, Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd, Parisrama Bhavan, Fateh Maidan Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500 004.

¶14

Zonal Manager, Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd, Patancheru, Medak District.

¶15

The Commissioner, Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd, Patancheru, Medak District.

¶16

The Managing Director, Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd' HYderabad

¶17

..RESPoNDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd Respondents in issuing letter dated 1S-12-2024, vide Proc.No. - 2llDAlPTClPh-V85561761892, is lllegal, arbitrary, capricious, Malafide, contrary to the law and againsi the principles of natural justice.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

¶21

direct the 2nd to sth respondents to receive payment for sub-division and mutation of Petitioner s Plot no. 1-A, admeasuring 102t0 sq.yards or 869.44 Sq.meters, in Sy.No. - 44O, situated at lDA, Phase l, Patancheru, GHMC, Medak District, as per the rates which are applicable at the time of Petitioner s first application Dt. - 22-04-2017, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to received the above letters Dt- 22-04-2017 & 06-06-2017, given by the Petitioner to the Respondent no.3.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M.ATISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 5: SRI M.SRIKATH REDDY, SC FOR TGIIC

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶27

ULRIT PETITION No. 91 61 0F 20/25

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The case of petitioners is that originally, their vendor's vendor purchased plot No. l-A in Survey No. 44o, admeasuring Acs.3.0741, phase [, patancheru, Medak District, through registered sale deed dated 06-0g- lggl from Respondent No.1 i.e. Apilc now TSIIC and of the above land Petitioner's vendor purchased Ac.l.00 through registered sale deed dated 2o-o3-2oo2 from whom petitioners purchased the said land through registered sale deed dated 12-06-2015 and since then they have in possession of the land. 1. 1. 1. It is stated, is stated, stated,^petitioners with an intention to developan intention to developto developdevelop

¶30

It is stated, is stated, stated,^petitioners with an intention to developan intention to developto developdevelop the above land into commerciar establishment, approached respondents for mutation and sub-division and accordingly, applied on 22-04-2017 and 06-06-20lr to Respondents 1 and 3, but the same were not considered. subsequently, as per the directions of the 3.d respondent, petitioners gave another Application dated 24-or-2o22 to Respondents 2, 4 and, 5 for sub-division and mutation of above plot. However, after few months, the 4e respondent informed petitioners to give another fresh Application to him; as there is no other option, petitioners

¶31

¶32

gave another Application dated 2L-O5-2O22; and as directed, again zrnother Application to the 5th respondent on 28-08-2023, but neithr:r the said Applications were disposecl nor rejected. Then Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 34488 of 20'.23 against the above respondents, wherein this Court passed order dated 22-O2-2024 directing respondents to dispose Petitioner's Applications after giving them a fair opportunity ol'trearing and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from date of receipt of copy of the orders and communicate the same to the Pet.itioners. As the said order was not irnplemented, Contempt Case No. 1252 of 2024 was filed, wherein Form-l notice was issued to Respondents directing their apllearance on 03-12-2024, but still they did not appear, hence, on 1O-12-2024 'Bailable Warrants' were issued against them.

¶33

1.2. Then, Respondents in a hurry, issued proceedings No. 2/lDAl PTC I Ph-l/E}5561761 892, dated 19-12-2024, stating that the request of petitioners was approved^{subject to} fulfillment of certain terms and conditions;^important of^which are petitionors were requested to pay Rs.33,30,303,/- towards sub-division fee and GST of Rs.5,99,456/-^totalling Rs.39,29,7591-; pay Rs.1,73,888/- towards statutory' fee for sub-division and Rs.31 ,3OO l- towards GST tolallir-rg to

¶34

¶35

Rs.2,05,18S/-. The said^{proceedingsare impugnedin this Writ} Petition.

¶36

1.3. It is also stated, Petitioner^{replied uide letterdated} OI-O3-2O25 for which, the 3'd Respondent by^{letter dated} O5-O3-2O25 clarified that, as per the rules and^{regulations of} TGIIC, sub-division and mutation charges shall be^{payable as} per the CURRENT RATES. Accordingly, the fee is calculated and communicated by letter dated 19-12-2024.

¶37

.4. The grievance of petitioners is that had the Applications been considered immediately after their submission, the amount would be much lesser and there was no GST in India at that time. [n fact, the 2"d respondent also received Rs. 4,5O,45,OOOl- towards payment for conversion of industrial land to commercial land from Petitioner's vendor. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶38

In the counter filed on behalf of Respondents 2 to 5, it is stated, Plot No. 1/A, measuring Acs.3-0741 Gts. at Phase-I, IDA, Patancheru was allotted in favour of M/s Khaza Enterprises, represented by its two Partners (1) Sri^K.S.N. Murthy, S/o. K. Ramaiah and (21 Sri K. Ramakrishna, S/o K.S.N.Murthy, on outright sale basis for manufacturing of Mechanizing (Job Works) and Fabrication Works. The

¶39

¶40

Agreement for^{sale of land was executedon 09.08 -1976 and} physicat possession^{of the plot was handed over :o the allottee} on 09.08. 1g76.^{Thereafter,all0tment wast:ancelled on} 2l.Ol.lg82 for^{non-implementationof the project' However, on} the request,^{the allotment was restored on 05-08- 1982and sale} deed was executed^{infavour of M/ sKhazaElterpriseson} 06.08. lggl.^{Thereafter, Mls Khaza Enterprisesuide letter dated} 29.O7.2OO2 inlormed^{that they had sold out entireland to three} parties and arccordingly,^{requested Respondentsfor approval of} sub-division^{and mutation of properties in favour ol'purchasers'} I submit [hat, the^{same was examined and approvedby the} Respondent. Accordingly,^{sub-division Proceedings \ rere issued} on 06.o8 .2OO2,^{dividing Plot No.1A into three parr-s, i.e. 1A/ I} measuring^{Acs. l-O741 Gts., lLl2measuring Acs. t-OO Gts. and} 1A/3 measuring^{Ac.1-00 Gts., subject to usualterms and} conditions ancl^{the same was mutatedin favour of purchasers of} sub-dividecl^{parts uideProceedings dated 12'O8'2OO2'} Subsequt:nth',^{uide letters dated 13'05'2014and 19'12'2014'} Sri M. venkareshwara^{Rao and others (Plot No- 1A7',3, Ac.1'00)} requested the Corporation^{for approval of conversion o[ land use} from Industrirrl to^{commercialfor commercial pul poses.The} same was cxamined^{and considered by the Head Office of the} Respondcnt corporertion^{and orders wereissued on ()8.12.2016}

¶41

¶42

for collecting 50% of the^{present land cost towards processfee.} The same was worked out to^{Rs.3,91,69,544/-plus Service Tax.} Upon receipt of the necessary^{process fee, this ofliceissued NOC} to Sri M.Venkateshwara^{Rao for conversionof land use from} Industrial to Commercial use^{for the purposes ofBusiness} Centre / Business Hotel cum^{Convention Centre} /^Showrooro I Malls or such other relative^{activities in an extent of 12,44O.7O} Sq. Mts.

¶43

'2.1. Subsequently by letters dated^{22.O4-2017and} 06.06.2017, it is informed that^{Petitioner No.1 (1040Sq. Yds.)} and R.S. Brothers Retail India^{Pvt. Ltd. (3800Sq. Yds.)} purchased Plot No.lA/3 and Petitioner^{No.1 requestedfor} mutation of the property. The other^{purchaserM/sR.S.} Brothers Retail India Pvt. Ltd.^{did not approach the Corporation} for mutation of the name. In^{fact, both the buyers shall submit} proposal in the prescribed format.^{Thoughthe other party did} not submit any proposal,^{the Corporation examinedand} considered the individual^{Application of Petitioner No.1 keeping} in vie,*, his representations.^{Hence, PetitionerNo.1 shallpa-v} necessary sub-division charges and get mutation done in^his name in TGIIC-IALA records.

¶44

2.2. As per the layout norms, if there is any division o[ plot into two or more parts, the buyers shall submit a proposal

¶45

¶46

in the prescribed format along with a lay out / drawing, duly showing the original plot and changes^madt: thereto,^for approval of sub-division of plot to Respondent^{Oorporationas} per the transactions. The Application of^{petitionerNo.1 was} examined in detail and he had been requestt:d to^submit proposal in the prescribed format. Accordingly, he submitted sub-division proposal uide letter dated 21.(15.2022^and 07.06.2022. Upon verification of the initial^proposal,the Corporation requested him to submit revised^drawings.The same was approved and orders were commrnicated^on 18.12.2024 of the Cleneral Manager (AM), Head Offit:e.

¶47

2.3. While the matter was under scrutiny, Petitioner No. 1 and another filed Writ Petition No. 34488 of 2023 seeking directions to consicler Petitioner's letters dated 22.O4.2O17, 06.06.2017 , 24.O1.2022 and Application dated OT .06.2022 and latest representation dated 28.08.2023 submitted to the^Vice Chairman & Managing^{Director,TGIIC Ltd. By its rrder dated} 22.02.2024, this^{CourtdirectedRespondentstopass} appropriate orclers in^{accordancewith law on the Application} after giving them a lair^{opportunityof hearing, u'ithin four} weeks from the date of receipt of the said order.^Accordingly, the Zonal Manager, Patancheru has called Petii-ioners^on 16.o7.2024 and hcard Petitioner No.1. Further, it^{is lcarntflrom}

¶48

¶49

Petitioner No.1 that in PIot No.lA at^{Phase-I,IP-Patancheru} admeasuring Acs.3 -O741 Gts.,^was earlier^{sub-divided into three} parts (1) l-A/1 1.0741 acres,⁽²¹ I-Al2-1.00^{Acre & (3) 1-Al3-} 1-00 Acre) and the same are^{approved by the Zonal Manager,} Patancheru. Subsequently, he had^{purchased 1040 Sq. Yds.,} from the owners of Plot^No. l-Al3^{in a rectangular shape and} remaining area of 3800 Sq. Yds.^{was purchased by M/s} R.S.Brothers. He had also informed^{that remainingarea of} 2.O741 acres in PIot No.1-A/ I and l-Al2 '*'as^{also purchased by} M/s R.S.Brothers. Hence, the total^{land in Plot No.1-A except} Petitioner's land i.e., 1O4O Sq.^{Yds., i.e., remaining area was} purchased by M/s R.S.Brothers. However,^{the partners of M/s} R.S.Brothers are not showing interest^{in approaching the TGIIC} for approval of sub-division and^{mutation of land intheir} favour, but Petitioners insisted^{for mutationof land in their} favour. The Zonal Manager,^{Patancheru referred this matterto} TGIIC, Head office uide letter^{dated27.07.2024 for approvalof} sub-division proposal. While the^{matterwas underscrutinyat} the Head Office level, Petitioner^{No.1 and anothermoved} Contempt Proceedings to consider their application for^mutation of the property.

¶50

2.4. The Head Oflice on 18.12.2024 issued instructions tentatively approving the sub-division proposal of Petitioner

¶51

¶52

, I tit :

¶53

No. 1, subject to payment of charges as l)er Circular No.198445/TSIIC/LACl2OI4l24l, dated Il.O9.2OL7 on prevailing lilnd cost plus GST @y. 1.8o/" along with all applicable statutory charges. Accordingly, their oflice issued demand Proceedings dated L9.12.2024 of the Zonal Manager, Patancheru. As per Circular dated lL.O9.2OI7 ol1 prevailing rate, sub-division charges have been worked out to Rs.33,30,303/- plus GST of Rs.5,99,456/-, Statutory charges have been wt>rked out to Rs.2,05,188/-. Hence, the r>rders have been issued in pursuance of the Circular dated I1.O9.2O17. As per the rules and regulations of TGllC, sub-division cherrges and mutation charges shall be payable as per current ratr--s i.e. date of approval shall be considered but not the date of apprlication.

¶54

I{eard learned counsel for petitioners Sri M. Atish and Sri M. Srikath Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGIIC and perused the record.

¶55

TGIIC, by proceedings dated 11.09.2017 issued revised guidelines in respect of sub-division of^{plot-/land in} industrial parks. The guidelines say that no mutation shall^be allowed before approval of sub-division; any change in line of activity by the purchaser should be approved by the Corporation ancl all dues payable to TSIIC or TSIIC-IALA shall be collected for c:onsidcring the sub-division proposal. I e vieu, of

¶56

¶57

the same, this Court does not find any fault in the impugned proceedings which directed payment of prescribed fee for approval of sub-division. This Court has no hesitation to hold that respondents have acted in accordance with the revised guidelines dated L1..O9.2017, according to which, petitioners .have to pay the amounts prescribed in the impugned order for sub-division and mutation of land. Hence, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed as clevoid of merit.

¶58

The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No

¶59

CoStS.

¶60

Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. l

¶61

//TRUE COPY/

¶62

SD/.P. PONNA^KRISHNA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR G

¶63

SECTION^OFFICER

¶64

To 1. One^{CC to SRI tVl.ATlSHKUM} E'^{Advocate[OPUCI} 2. Two^{ccs to cp'Fon'irrrous_inirs EbN/ttviEhaE,nign court for the Stateof} Telangana,^{at HYderaba{.} [O-UJ]

¶65

1. one cc to^{SRI il.5'friiGTr-inErjov, sc FoR Tcllc [oPUC]}

¶66

Two CD^CoPies

PSK. GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411012025

ORDER

C
;lr t 1

WP.No.9161 of 2025

DISMISSING THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶74

\ {

¶75

'hR'

Vutukuri Pandu Rangam v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vutukuri Pandu Rangam v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Komire, Vs The Union of India

Sunitha Singh Vs The Union of India

Mr. Bachireddy Shai Reddy, Vs The Union of India

Kukkaiahgari Krishna Reddy Vs Union of India

Janjanam Sanjeev Gandhi Vs Union of India

M/s Four Ways Service Providers Vs The Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation