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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.