APHC010443292021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 26829/2021 Between: 1. SMT. J NAGAMANI, W/O. RAMBABU, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 40-2-14, KARTHAVEERYA NILAYAM, BESIDE BHARATH AUTOMOBILES, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PRINCIPLE SECRETARY MUNICIPAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE VIJAYAWADA GUNTUR TENALI MANGALAGIRI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VGTM UDA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN. 3. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 4. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, ZONE CORPORATION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 26829/2021 W/O. RAMBABU, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O. DOOR 14, KARTHAVEERYA NILAYAM, BESIDE BHARATH AUTOMOBILES, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY MUNICIPAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. THE VIJAYAWADA GUNTUR TENALI MANGALAGIRI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VGTM UDA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, ZONE-III, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] W/O. RAMBABU, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O. DOOR 14, KARTHAVEERYA NILAYAM, BESIDE BHARATH AUTOMOBILES, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ...PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY MUNICIPAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR THE VIJAYAWADA GUNTUR TENALI MANGALAGIRI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VGTM UDA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS III, MUNICIPAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for the Municipal and Urban Development Authority and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not remitting back the FAR-Bonds/Original Bonds dated 18.10.2022, 13.12.2022 and TDR Bond in ROC.No.L3-EP.No.228/0/8, O.S.No.1737/04 dated 23.06.2009 submitted by the petitioner along with the application under Registration No.2010-MNG-111524 dated 08.03.2010 submitted before the 3rd respondent, in spite of several requests as well as a fresh representation dated 19.07.2021. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had constructed a property over a site admeasuring 262.49 square yards in R.S.No.24/4-A, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, and that the respondent No.3, on the premise that the petitioner had constructed a deviation, imposed a penalty of Rs.4,50,00,000/-. It is submitted that the petitioner purchased TDR bonds worth about Rs.51,10,615/- and, instead of paying the penalty levied by the 3rd respondent, offered to deposit the TDR bonds of an equivalent amount. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent rejected the said proposal; accordingly, the petitioner deposited the amount of penalty levied and sought to utilize the TDR bonds. It is submitted that the TDR bonds deposited by the petitioner were misplaced in the office of the 3rd respondent. 4 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that there is no endorsement issued to the petitioner which would indicate that the petitioner submitted his original TDR bond and that the original TDR bond is not misplaced in the office of the respondent. 5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the endorsement dated 05.07.2021, the TDR bond issued to the petitioner was not utilized. The issue relating to the misplacement of the TDR bond in the office of the 3rd respondent and determination as to who is responsible for misplacing the said bond in the year 2009 need not be gone into by this Court at this stage. However, on consideration that the endorsement dated 05.07.2021 is not disputed, which would categorically indicate that the TDR bond issued to the petitioner is not utilized, nothing should forbid the 3rd respondent from issuing a fresh TDR bond and cancelling the earlier TDR bond issued in favour of the petitioner. 6. On these considerations, the learned Standing Counsel submits that if the petitioner submits a fresh representation seeking grant of a fresh/duplicate TDR bond, the 3rd respondent shall duly consider the same. 7. Recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation to the 3rd respondent seeking issuance of a fresh/duplicate TDR bond. The 3rd respondent shall cancel the earlier TDR bond and issue a fresh/duplicate TDR bond, which the petitioner can be permitted to utilize as deemed appropriate. At any rate, the entire process 5 shall be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 10.10.2025 PNS