APHC010243802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 12520/2025 Between: 1. A SARADA, W/O SRI A SUFE RAJU, AGED 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O D. NO. 78-6-26, SHYAMALA NAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.533 101. 2. KALIDINDI SRI RAMANJANEYARAJU, S/O K.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, AGED 72 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O D.NO.4-47-12/3, L.B. COLONY, VISALDIAPATNAM-17 3. G M JAGANNADHA RAJU, S/O LATE G.V.J. RAJU, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O VILLA NO. 17, BLUE MARINO NAVARATNA ESTATES, CHEPALUPPADA, VISAKHAPATNAM-531 163 4. SMT P INDIRA RAJU, W/O LATE P CHINNA RANGA RAJU AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/O DOOR NO 30-15-34, DHBA GARDENS VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.A. AND U.D, DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, VISALCHAPATNAM- 530003 3. THE VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM , REP BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530003 4. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER VISAKHAPATNAM- 530 003. 2 5. THE TAHSILDAR, VISAKHAPATNAM RURAL MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 530003 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in initiating proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and in paying compensation for the land which was already taken possession by the 3rd respondent. 2. It is submitted that a road was laid on the petitioner’s land without paying any compensation. It is submitted that at the time of taken possession of the said land, it was promised by the 3rd respondent that alternative land shall be provided to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the land was taken possession in the year 2005 and thereafter, there has been complete silence from the 3rd respondent in providing alternative land to the petitioner. 3. In order to acquire the said land by following the procedure, a notice dated 14.11.2013 was issued, which subsequently lapsed. Thereafter, no further progress has been made in initiating acquisition proceedings, nor there have been any steps from the 3rd respondent in providing alternate land as promised. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent is willing to offer TDR bonds, which were summarily rejected by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the proposal to offer TDR bonds was also not approved by the 4th respondent. As TDR policy was introduced 4 in the year 2007, whereas the land was taken possession of in the year 2005, and that the issue is not pending with the 4th respondent. 5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4, this Court is of the considered view that respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall initiate appropriate steps for acquiring the land of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. At any rate, the said process of acquisition of land and passing of final orders shall be completed strictly in accordance with the said Act. The proceedings shall be initiated within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt: 17.07.2025 SR