APHC010300052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Agnihotram Srinivas The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15091 OF 2025 AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: N ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15091 OF 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in failing to issue Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) for utilizing the land to an extent of 149.55 Sq.yds in (Old Sy.No. 42/2) New Sy.No. 42/2D of Gunadala Village, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Area, Vijayawada belongs to the Petitioner for road widening and construction of drainage as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the A.P. Building Rules, 2019. 2. The Petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the subject property, who acquired the same under a Registered Sale Deed No.2724 of 2011, dated 16.06.2011. While so, the above mentioned part of the property was utilized by the Respondent/ Corporation for the purpose of road widening and laying of drainage channel. As the Respondent No.2 neither issued TDR to the Petitioner nor provided any response to the representations dated 20.07.2023, 20.01.2025 and 03.02.2025 requesting to issue TDR to the Petitioner for utilizing his portion of the land, but the same was not considered, inspite of repeated requests. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents, placed on record the signed instructions of the Commissioner, dated 24.06.2025, wherein it is admitted that the property was taken with the consent of the Petitioner for the purpose of construction of drainage and the road as per Master Plan. Since the Petitioner was in abroad, the TDR Bonds could not be issued to the Petitioner on par with other property owners, who were similarly placed. It is also mentioned that the Petitioner made a request for issuance of TDR Bonds for an extent of 149.55 Sq.yds is under process and same will be placed before the Scrutiny Committee for consideration. The relevant portion of the instructions is extracted below: “Accordingly, the petitioner’s request for issuance of TDR Bonds for an extent of 149.55 Sq.yds is under process. The file is being prepared and will be placed before the Scrutiny Committee for consideration, in line with the aforementioned Government Memo.” 4. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 5. Chapter XII of the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules provides guidelines for issuance of TDRs. Subsequent to the institution of the Writ Petition, G.O.Ms.No.4 MAUD (M) Department dated 09.01.2025 was issued by the State bringing certain amendments to the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017. The Rule 169(3)(a) which is relevant to the present case was amended as under: XIV. In Rule 169 - (1) for sub-rule (3), the following shall be substituted, namely: "(3) (a) In case of ULBS, the Municipal Commissioner is competent to approve the Road Development Plan/Circulation Plan and to issue TDR as per Rules. (b) In case of UDAS, the Metropolitan Commissioner/ Commissioner/ Vice Chairperson is the competent to approve the Road Development Plan/ Circulation Plan and issue TDR. (c) The following committee shall scrutinize all aspects before issuance of TDR by meeting on a fortnightly basis the concern Town Planning Section Head shall notify the TDR proposal, before placing it in the committee, by way of paper notification to be given and within as stipulated period of 7 days, any claims and objections which may arise also to be placed before the Committee. 1. The Committee at ULB level will consist of the following officials: a) Municipal Commissioner concerned – Chairperson b) RDDTP of concerned region. c) Additional Commissioner, Revenue In-Charge. d) ULB town planning head – Convenor. 2. The Committee at UDA's / MRDA will consist of the following officials: a) Commissioner, CRDA / Metropolitan Commissioner, VMRDA /V.C. of the UDA - Chairperson. b) RDDTP of concerned region. c) Town planning head of the UDA concerned - convenor. 3. The above committees shall scrutinize all aspects before issuance of TDR. Before issuance of TDR the following aspects shall be mandatorily checked: Ownership of land. Extent of land affected. Whether it is required to issue TDR as per rules. Valuation of TDR. Any master plan issues Whether any other benefits were received earlier etc. After dealing with objections, if any received from the General Public only TDR's shall be issued duly verifying the draft gift deed." The said Committee will take decision collectively either by conducting a meeting or through circulation of the file in online portal. The SLA period will be fixed separately for each member. The deemed provision shall be enabled in the Online portal. In case of the deemed approval, if it is found at later date that, the TDR is issued erroneously, the concerned will be held responsible and liable for disciplinary action. Further, if any of the Committee member rejects the proposal without proper justification and recording the reasons shall not be considered. The detailed guidelines governing these rules will be issued separately. 6. As per the above extracted Rule, the officials named above as regards Urban Development Authorities will scrutinize all the aspects before issuing TDR by meeting fortnightly. However, no outer time limit was prescribed in the amended Rule for issuance of TDR. The land of the Writ Petitioner was taken possession long back and it would be appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition as follows: (i) The Respondent No.2 is directed to place the file of the Writ Petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee forthwith and the Scrutiny Committee shall examine the documents of the Writ Petitioner and accordingly consider issuance of TDR within an outer time limit of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 26.06.2025 KK