SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 31972

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
K.Arunachala Murthy – Appellant
Versus
AP Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (APIDC) – Respondent
WP 10772/2025



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.10772 of 2025

30.12.2025

Between:

K. Arunachala Murthy

…Petitioner

AND

A.P. Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (APIDC),

Represented by it’s Chariman and Managing Director,

Parishram Bhavan, TGIDC Ltd.,

Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to

respondent No.1 to consider the representation, dated

07.02.2024, whereby the petitioner is seeking

allocation/transfer of a piece of land in Sy.No.256/5A

admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents, situated at Krishnapuram

##PAGE2##

2

village, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu, at market price

under Section 29 and 31 of the State Financial Corporations

Act, 1951, as the said land is adjacent to the petitioner’s

property.

2. Heard Sri Ramana Allu, learned counsel for the

petitioners; V. Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel appearing

for respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5 Government Pleader for

Finance and Planning appearing for respondent No.4.

Perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased a piece

of land totally admeasuring Ac.11.08 ½ cents, situated at

Krishnapuram village and Panchayat Board, Palladam Taluq

(Panchayat Union), Tiruppur District, Tamilnadu from the

A.P. Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., (APIDC) and

the same was registered in his favour vide registered sale

deed, dated 27.08.2013. Respondent No.2 had earlier

purchased land admeasuring Ac.13.58 ½ cents by virtue of

four registered sale deeds, dated 05.12.1994. Due to default

in repayment of a loan amount of Rs.94,00,000/- respondent

No.1–APIDC initiated steps to sell the property kept as

##PAGE3##

3

collateral security and issued a paper publication in daily

newspapers dated 21.08.2012. Pursuant thereto, the

petitioner purchased land admeasuring Ac.11.08 ½ cents

through a registered sale deed, dated 27.08.2013. By virtue

of Section 29 of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951,

respondent No.1 seized the property and the same was sold

to the petitioner, except the land in Sy.No.256/5A

admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that

on observing physical possession, the property is found to be

divided into two parts. Apart from the land admeasuring

Ac.11.08½ cents situated in Sy.Nos.220/1, 256/2D, 256/4,

and 256/5B, there exists another piece of land in

Sy.No.256/5A admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents. The said land lies

between Sy.Nos.256/4 and 256/5B, causing obstruction and

difficulty in access. Therefore, the petitioner is willing to

purchase the said land in Sy.No.256/5A from respondent

No.1. As per the revenue records, Sy.No.256/5 measures

Ac.5.00 cents and is subdivided into Sy.No.256/5A

admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents and Sy.No.256/5B admeasuring

##PAGE4##

4

Ac.2.50 cents. Sy.No.256/5B stands in the name of the

petitioner, while Sy.No.256/5A stands in the name of

respondent Nos.2 & 3. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted

a representation to respondent No.1 seeking permission to

purchase the land admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents in

Sy.No.256/5A, situated at K. Krishnapuram Village and

Panchayat Board, Palladam Taluk (Panchayat Union),

Tiruppur District, Tamil Nadu. However, the said

representation has not been considered. Hence, the Writ

Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1

contended that respondent No.1 grants loans under the

provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, and

that the petitioner has no privity of contract with respondent

No.1. It was further contended that only respondent Nos.2

and 3 are liable to respondent No.1 and, therefore, the

petitioner has no locus standi to seek the relief prayed for.

Hence, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same

is liable to be dismissed.

##PAGE5##

5

6. Having considered that the respective submissions,

keeping in view the limited grievance of the petitioner that his

representation dated 07.02.2024, seeking permission to

purchase the remaining bit of land as well (i.e., Ac.2-50 cents

in Sy.No.256

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top