M SATYANARAYANA v. THE STATE OF AP
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 Jan 2026
- Bench
- HARINATH N
Outcome
Disposed of
Recording the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of, making it clear to
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of, making it clear to the respondent authorities to follow the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in the event the respondents require the petitioner’s property for public…
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 165/2026 Between:
1. M SATYANARAYANA, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 37-1-346(2), TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AMARAVATI.522238
2. THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTEDBY ITS COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.523001 ...RESPONDENT(S)
: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 nature of Writ of Mandamus Declaring the action Of the Respondents in attempting to demolish/acquire the Petitioners' property bearing Door No. the Notice 37-1-346(2), Roc. No.3535/2025/G1 dated 29-11-2025, without following the procedure established under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, Petitioners specific rejection of TDR Bonds vide reply dated 0,5-12-2025, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution Trunk Road, Ongole, 2013, despite pursuant 2 of India and contrary to the orders in W.P. No. 21175 of 2025and Consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property or demolish the same until the land is lawfully acquired by paying compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, considering the Petitioners rejection of TDR Bonds vide reply dated 05-12-2025 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 direct the Respondents and their agents, servants, or any person claiming through them, from interfering with the Petitioners possession or taking any coercive steps, including demolition of the property situated at Door No. 37-1-346(2), situated at Trunk Road, Revenue Ward No. 14, Ongole, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SHAIK ASIF Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3
ORDER:-
The petitioner is aggrieved by the unilateral action of the 2nd respondent authority in holding out threats of demolition and dispossession of the petitioner’s property.
It is submitted that the 2nd respondent, in order to widen the road, intends to dispossess the petitioner vide notice dated 29.11.2025, calling upon the petitioner to execute a registered gift deed and also express consent for accepting the TDR bonds at 1:4 ratio for the land surrendered by the petitioner. The petitioner is also called upon to submit copies of the registered sale deed, link documents, Aadhar Card photocopy, PAN Card photocopy, and other documents to the 2nd respondent for determining eligibility for grant of compensation/TDR bonds.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, under the guise of the said notice, the 2nd respondent intends to issue TDR bonds, which are not acceptable to the petitioner.
Sri A.S.C. Bose, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, on instructions submits that the petitioner was initially offered TDR bonds on par with other landowners whose property is also affected in the road widening process. Now the petitioner has expressed unwillingness to accept TDR bonds, in lieu of their extents of land affected in the road widening. The respondent-authorities shall follow due process of law as laid down under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 4 Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if they intend to dispossess from the petitioner’s property.
Operative part
Recording the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of, making it clear to the respondent authorities to follow the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in the event the respondents require the petitioner’s property for public purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 06.01.2026 PNS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of, making it clear to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 06 Jan 2026. The bench was HARINATH N.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.