Thatha Sudhakar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

praying that in the circumstances stated support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to staff not to interfere with in the affidavit filed in direct the 2nd respondent and its enjoyment of petitioners property 170.2 sq. yards of land along with RCC Gh-1 building with door No. 37-1-259 Assessment No. 1035034635 in T.S.No. 385, Trunk Road possession Ongole, Prakasam District i in any manner including or blocking the ingress/egress from dispossession, trespass shops, or canvassing to stop the customers. demolition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent No 1 * DEVAP GP A/IUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN Counsel for the Respondent No.2: CORPORATIONS SRI A S C BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPAL The Court made the following order: V APHC0104489Q2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 22793/2025 Between:

1.THATHA SUDHAKAR, S/0 SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT R/0 17-1-44, AMALA NADHUNI VARI STREET, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM 56 YEARS, KANYAKA PARAMESWARI VEEDHI, DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2.THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION COMMISSIONER, OFFICE, OPP. CHURCH CENTER, ONGOLE. ...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 topleased to issue a Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in a) giving markings to petitioners -2- HN, J W.P.No.22793_2025 property i.e. 170.2 sq. yards of land along with RCC G1 building with No. 37-1-259, Assessment No. 1035034635 in T.S.No. 385, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District, b) pressurising the petitioner to accept TDR certificates by handing over the said property to the 2nd respondent for proposed road widening of the Trunk Road from Church Centre to Keerthi Medical Shop width of 100 feet as per the Master Plan, and c) initiating steps to demolish the said property of the petitioner by dispossessing from the procedure under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency i Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 not to interfere with the possession and ownership of Petitioner over his property without following the procedure contemplated under The Transparency Compensation Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and land, without following Right Fair to a pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances direct the 2nd respondent and its staff stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court be pleased pleased to not to interfere with possession enjoyment of petitioners property 170.2 r' sq. yards of land along with RCC G+1 building with door No. 37-1-259, Ongole,’ Assessment No. 1035034635 in T.S.No. 385, Trunk Road, Prakasam District in any manner including trespass dispossession, demolition or blocking the ingress/egress from shops, or canvassing to stop the customers and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP V' -3- HN, J W.P.No.22793_2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.22793 OF 2025 ORDER:

#1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent in a) giving markings to petitioner’s property i.e., 170.2 sq. yards of land along with RCC G1 building with door No. 37-1-259, Assessment No. 1035034635 in T.S.No.385, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District, b) pressurizing the petitioner to accept TDR certificates by handing over the said property to the 2nd respondent for proposed road widening of the Trunk Road from Church Centre to Keerthi Medical Shop width of 100 feet as per the Master Plan, and c) initiating steps to demolish the said property of the petitioner by dispossessing from the land, without following the procedure under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as arbitrary and illegal.

#2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for Ongole Municipal Corporation.

#3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21175 of 2025 and requested to pass a simitar order in this -4- HN, J W.P.No.22793_2025 writ petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under; ^ authorities writ petition is disposed off directing the ....the respondent petitioner’s enjoyment possession property without following due process of law, making respondent authorities shall have to follow the Act 30 of 13 while acquiring the land of the petitioner.” further disturb

#4. In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this writ petition is also disposed of, in terms of the order, dated 08.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21175 of 2025. There shall be no order as to costs.

#5. Registry is directed to annex a copy of the order in W.P. No.21175 of 2025 to the order in the present writ petition. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in tf^is^writ petition shall stand closed. r To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

#1. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Secretariat buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Municipal Administration Department and Velagapudi,

#2. The Commissioner, Ongole Municipal Corporation, Ongole Municipal Corporation Office, 0pp. Church center, Ongole.

#3. One CC to SRI. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT].

#5. Two CD Copies. [Along with the copy of the order in W.P.No.21175 of 2025 ] AL 'i 1 ^. \ HIGH COURT DATED:25/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 22793 OF 2025 ^ 0 7 NOV 2025 p ^^Cyiranl SbcIiob^'^^ ^«£S£4isiass^ Co DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS \,' 6APHC010408582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21175/2025 Between:

1.KOTA SRIMANNARAYANA, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT ANDHRA COFFEE, TRUNK ROAD, 50 YEARS, R/0 37-1-316, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 28-1- 87, NEAR ENUGU CHETTU, ONGOLE 523001. ...PETITIONER AND

1.THE STATE OF AP, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS

2.THE ONGOLE ITS COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, OPP. CHURCH CENTER, ONGOLE. CORPORATION, MUNICIPAL REP. BY ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.SASANKA BHUVANAGIRl Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1 .GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

2.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: ORDER:- 2 The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 2 respondent in marking the petitioner’s property admeasuring 54 square yards of land in T.S.No.49 along with a RCC roof structure, wherein the petitioner i IS running a shop in the name and style of Andhra Coffee and General Stores bearing Door No.37-1-316.

#2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is pressurized by the 2"^ respondent and their officers to accept the TDR certificates in return for handing over 54 square yards property for the purpose is submitted that the respondent authorities cannot force of road widening. It the petitioner to accept TDR bonds while the petitioner for public purposes. It acquiring the property belonging to is also submitted that the TDR bonds would not meet the requirements of the petitioner as an alternative to compensation for the land acquired.

#3. The learned counsel petitioner further submits 2"'^ respondent would have to follow the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in the event the respondent authorities intend to acquire any portion of the petitioner’s land for public purposes.

#4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2 respondent submits that the petitioner is issued a notice under Sections 145 and 146 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and objections of the petitioner are called for, indicating that the petitioner would be issued TDR 3 bonds @1:4 which can be utilized by the petitioner or could be put to sale and liquidated subsequently. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities would follow the procedure contemplated under Sections 145 and 146 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and accordingly this writ petition can be disposed of by recording the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel that the respondent authorities shall follow the provisions of Chapter V of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 rotating to acquisition of property. The Sections 145, 146 and 147 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 relate to the power and procedure for acquisition of immovable property.

#5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2"'^ respondent.

#7. Section 146 deals with acquisition of immovable property by agreement. Section 147 deals with procedure when immovable property cannot be acquired by agreement.

#8. Section 145 empowers the Corporation to acquire any property on payment of compensation.

#9. The insistence of the 2'^^ respondent in indicating the TDR bonds as an alternative for the land affected and required for public purpose would amount to coercive tactics of the respondent authorities.

#10. In view of Section 147 of. the Act of the Municipal Corporation, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, would have to be essentially followed by the respondent authorities. It is always open to the 4 petitioner to accept the offer of TDR bonds. However, in cases where the landowners do not accept the TDR bonds offered by the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities would have to follow the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

#11. On these considerations, the writ petition is disposed off directing the respondent authorities not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner property without following due process of law, making it further clear that the respondent authorities shall have to follow the Act 30 of 13 while acquiring the land of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

#12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

08.09.2025 PNS JUSTICE HARINATH.N