APHC010427772025 HjSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) % A- CD m •o MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER JO ^|| TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE a? PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 22275 OF 2025 Between: I 1. Munagala Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o. Venka Reddy, i Aged 48 years, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. NGO Colony, Ongole Town, Prakasam District, i 2. Vemula Chenchu Krishnaiah, S/o. Uma Maheswara Rao i Aged 49 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.D.No.37-1-345/15, i TVP Street, Near TVS Showroom, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3. Ravinuthala Mohan Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.D.No.35-4-61A Age /5 years, . . Seetaramapuram, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4. Chintha Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Satyanarayana, Age 52 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.D.No.4-64 main, Yedugundlapadu Village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasani District. 5. Chintha Krishnaveni, W/o. Srinivasa Reddy, Aged48 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.D.No.4-64 main, Yedugundlapadu Village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 6. Verna Bala Murali Krishna, S/o. Venkateswarlu Aged 45 years, OcC: Business, R/o. Flat NO.G2, Sri Balaji Radhakrishna Villa, Rajapanagal Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. 7. Shaik Shoukat Ali, S/o. Khasim Saheb, Aged 54years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.1-34, Aravapalem, Ongole, Prakasam District. 8. Shaik Hyder Ali, S/o. Khajavalli, Aged 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.20-1-41/1, Mangalipalem, Ongole, Prakasam District. 9. Shaik Akram AM, S/o. Khajavalli, Aged 35 years, Occ; Business, R/o.D.No.20-1-41/1, MangaMpalem, Ongole, Prakasam District. 10. Shaik Kareemunnisha Begum, W/o. Shaik Mujafar, Age 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.20-1-41/1, MangaMpalem, Ongole, Prakasam District. 11. Shaik Hazuthulla, S/o. Shaik Mastan Saheb, Aged 64 years, Occ; Business, R/o. Garden Towers, Second Floor-Si, B-Block, Mangamuru Donka, Ongole, Prakasam District. r Petitioners And 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Ongole Municipal Corporation, Rep.by it’s Commissioner, Governor Rd, Jakrama Nagar, Devuni Cheru, Ongole, Prakasam District 3. The Town Planning officer, Ongole Municipal Corporation, Governor Road, Jakrama Nagar, Devuni Cheru, Ongole, Prakasam District. Respondents 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents, particularly respondent No.2 and 3 in marking the petitioners' buildings and site properties for the purpose of demolition for road widening of Trunk Road from Church Centre to Keerthi Medical Store of Ongole City, covered by Town Survey Nos.95, 187, 159, 242, 260, 293 and 383, situated at 6th ward, 3rd block Trunk Road, Ongole Municipality, Ongole Town, Prakasam District and more 0^ also in issuing notice in R.O.C.No.3525/2025/G1 dated 15.07.2025 issued by without considering petitioners objections dated 26.07.2025 2nd respondent without following any known procedure established under the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and the Central Act The 30 of 2013 and rules framed there under as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of said statutory provisions and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300A of of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere Constitution in any manner with said site and building properties of petitioners 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 High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of notice in R.O.C.No.3525/2025/G1 dated 15.07.2025 respondent and consequently direct the respondents not to issued by 2nd demolish nor evict the petitioners from their respective buildings, site and covered by Town Survey Nos.95, 187, 159, 242, 260, 293 shops properties and 383, situated at ward, 3 block Trunk Road, Ongole Municipality Ongole Town, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners; SRI NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP Counsel for the Respondents No.2, 3; SRI A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following order: APHC010427772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] K m MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 22275/2025 Between: 1. MUNAGALA VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, S/0. VENKA REDDY AGED 48 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/0. NGO COLONY, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. . VEMULA CHENCHU KRISHNAIAH,, S/0. UMA MAHESWARA RAO, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.37-1-345/15, TVP STREET, NEAR TVS SHOWROOM, TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. RAVINUTHALA MOHAN RAO,, S/0. RAMA RAO, AGE 75 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.35-4-61 A, SEETARAMAPURAM, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. CHINTHA SRINIVASA REDDY,, S/0. SATYANARAYANA, AGE 52 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION YEDUGUNDLAPADU VILLAGE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. R/O.D.NO.4-64 MAIN, MADDIPADU MANDAL, 5. CHINTHA KRISHNAVENI,, W/0. SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED48 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, YEDUGUNDLAPADUVILLAGE MADDIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. R/O.D.N0.4-64MAIN, 6. VERNA BALA MURALI KRISHNA,, S/0. VENKATESWARLU AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/0. FLAT NO.G2, SRI BALAJI RADHAKRISHNA VILLA, RAJAPANAGAL ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2 7. SHAIK SHOUKAT ALi„ S/0. KHASIM SAHEB, AGED 54YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.1-34, ARAVAPALEM, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 8. SHAIK HYDER ALI„ S/0. KHAJAVALLI, AGED 31 YEARS, OCC. R/O.D.NO.20-1-41/1, MANGALIPALEM BUSINESS, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 9. SHAIK AKRAM ALI„ S/0. KHAJAVALLI, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC. R/O.D.NO.20-1-41/1, MANGALIPALEM BUSINESS, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 10.SHAIK KAREEMUNNISHA BEGUM,, W/0. SHAIK MUJAFAR AGE 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.20-1-41/1, MANGALIPALEM, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 11.SHAIK HAZUTHULLA,, S/0. SHAIK MASTAN SAHEB AGED 64 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/0. GARDEN TOWERS, SECOND FLOOR-SI, B-BLOCK, MANGAMURU DONKA, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP.BY IT'S COMMISSIONER, GOVERNOR RD, JAKRAMA NAGAR, DEVUNI CHERU, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT MUNICIPAL 3.THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GOVERNOR ROAD, JAKRAMA NAGAR, DEVUNI CHERU, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI 3 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 4 ORDER:- 5- The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the 2^^^ respondent in marking the petitioners’ properties in T.S.Nos.242, 260, 242, 187, 159, 95, 293, 293, 293, 293 and 383 along with a RCC buildings, wherein the petitioners constructed their houses and shops bearing Door Nos.37-1-334, 37-1-346 (old), 37-1-384, 37-1-332, 37-1-329, 31-1-37, 37-1-57(1), 42, 42, 42, 42 and 37-1-257. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are being pressurized by the 2'^^ respondent and their officers to accept the TDR certificates in return for handing over the properties for the purpose of road widening. It is submitted that the respondent authorities cannot force the petitioners to accept TDR bonds while acquiring the properties belonging to the petitioners for public purposes. It is also submitted that the TDR bonds would not meet the requirements of the petitioners as an alternative to compensation for the land acquired. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the 2"*^ respondent would have to follow the provisions of the Right to Fair 3. Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in the event the respondent authorities intend to acquire any portion of the petitioners’ land for public purposes. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^*^ respondent submits that the petitioners are issued a notice under Sections 145 and 146 of the 4. Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and objections of the 5 petitioners are called for, indicating that the petitioners would be issued TDR bonds @1:4 which can be utilized by the petitioners 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, relating to acquisition of properties. Sections 145, 146 and 147 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, relate to the power and procedure for acquisition of immovable property. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2"^ respondent. Section44^6 deals with acquisition of immovable property by agreement. Section 147 deals with procedure when immovable property cannot be acquired by agreement. Section 145 empowers the Corporation to acquire any property payment of compensation. The insistence of the 2'^^ respondent in indicating the TDR bonds alternative for the lands affected and required for public purposes would amount to coercive tactics of the respondent authorities. In view of Section 147 of the Municipal Corporation Act, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, would have to be essentially 5. 6. 7. 8. on 9. as an 10. 6 followed by the respondent authorities. It is always open to the petitioners 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. On these considerations, the writ petition is disposed off directing the respondent authorities not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ properties without following due process of law, making it further clear that the respondent authorities shall have to follow the Act 30 of 13 while 11. acquiring the land of the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand cl(^;^d. 12. Sd/-lA. SRSNlV.s^S assistant REGiSTRAR //TRUE COPY// To ’ SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Stuie of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Ongole Municipal Corporation, Governor Rd, Jakrama Nagar, Devuni Cheru, Ongole, Prakasam District 3. The Town Planning officer, Ongole Municipal Corporation Road, Jakrama Nagar, Devuni Cheru, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4. One CC to SRI NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies Governor gsg ' If '.j HIGH COURT DATED: 08/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 22275 OF 2025 ^ 19 SEP 2025 ^^^^.Current .■V . O ! I cc • DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS