Devatha Vinoda Krishna Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly on in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2'^'^ respondent in a) giving markings to petitioners property property i.e. 34.34 sq. yards of land along with a RCC G+2 Structure D.No.37-1-53(Old. No.37-1-64), Assessment No. 1035023897, T.S.No.90 and 100, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District b) pressurising the petitioner to accept TDR certificates by handing over the said property to the 2""^ respondent for proposed road widening of the Trunk Road from Church Centre to Keerthi Medical Shop to a width of 100 feet as per the Master Plan, and c) initiating steps to dispossess petitioner from the land of said property by demolishing the structure without following the procedure under The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Resettlement Act, 2013 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 not to interfere with the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And possession and ownership of Petitioner over his property without following the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. lA No: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Fligh Court may be pleased to direct the 2 Respondent and its staff not to interfere with possession enjoyment of petitioner over his property i.e 34.34 sq. yards of land along with a RCC G+2 Structure with D.No.37-1-53(Old. No.37-1-64), Assessment No. 1035023897, T.S.No.90 and 100, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District in any manner including trespass, dispossession, demolition or blocking the ingress/ egress from property. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION The Court made the following APHC010462862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457] (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 23471/2025 Between:

1.DEVATHA VINODA KRISHNA RAO, S/0 KANNAIAH (LATE), AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/0 FLAT NO. SI, KAMAKSHl APARTMENT, 9-2- 26, BALAJIRAOPETA, ONGOLE. ...PETITIONER AND

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

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 BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 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 34.34 square yards of land in T.S.Nos.90 and 100 along with a RCC G+2 structure, wherein the petitioner is running a shop bearing Door No.37-1-53 (Old No. 37-1-64).

#2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is pressurized by the 2 nd respondent and their officers to accept the TDR certificates in return for handing over 34.34 square yards property for the purpose of road widening. It is submitted that the respondent authorities cannot force the petitioner to accept TDR bonds while acquiring the property belonging to the petitioner for public purposes. It 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 that 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 bonds @1:4 which can be utilized by the petitioner or could be put to sale and 3 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 relating 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 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 petitioner to accept the offer of TDR bonds. However, in cases where the 4 landowners do not accept the TDR bonds offered by the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities would have to follow the provisions of 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 clqs/^d. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To,

#1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Development Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Department, of Andhra State SECTIO^FFICER Administration Pradesh & Urban Secretariat

#2. The Commissioner, Ongole Municipal Corporation, Ongole Municipal Corporation Office, Opp:Church Center, Ongole.

#3. One CC to Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admn & Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

#5. One CC to Sri A.S.C.Bose, SC for Municipal Corporations.[OPUC ] 6. Two CD Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:08/09/2025 ORDER WP No.23471 OF 2025 2 3 SEP 2025 ^ Current Section m .9 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS