A APHC010495052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HjiiH Im r -Oi o r • 30 Jtv WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ’ • PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25261 OF 2025 Between: Thunugunta Sudhakar Rao, S/o. ThunuguntaRamanadham, Aged about 62 R/o. D.No. 37-1-326, Trunk Road, Ongole Town, years, Occ; Business Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Arnaravati 2. the Ongole Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"^^ Respondent and its officials in giving markings to the petitioner's property bearing D.No.37-1- situated at Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District, pressurising and coercing the petitioner to accept Transferable Development Rights (TDR) bonds and taking coercive steps to demolish the petitioner's property without 326 f > following the due procedure established under The Right in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation to Fair Compensation and Transparency Resettlement Act, and 2013, as being illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 arbitrary, highhanded, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and Consequently, direct the petitioner's peaceful respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property and any part thereof without following the due established under the Act of 2013. not to demolish process of law as 1A_N0M_0F2P25 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances stated P®*'*'®". the High Court may be pleased ot direct the Respondents and their agents, servants, or any Petitioner's person claiming possession or taking any through them, from interfering with the coercive steps, including demolition of the 326, Trunk Road Ongole, pending disposal property situated at D.No. 37-1- of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ASIF Counsel for the Respondent No.2: The Court made the following order: ■■<V, APHC01D495052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25261/2025 Between: S/0. RAO, THUNUGUNTARAMANADHARN. AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0. D.NO. 37-1-326, TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. SUDHAKAR 1.THUNUGUNTA ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ARNARAVATI 2.THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT{S); 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent and its officials in giving markings to the petitioner's property bearing D.No. 37-1-326, situated at Trunk Road, Ongole.Prakasam District, pressurising and coercing the petitioner to accept Transferable Development Rights (TDR) bonds and taking coercive steps to demolish the petitioner's property without following the due procedure Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and established under The Right to Fair 2 Resettlement unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 ' h highhanded, of India and Consequently direct the resn '''® Constitution petitioner's peaceful possesston anr ‘o interfere not to demolish any prrt therrr 1 S"^®hule estahiishedunderSSrdtlr"^ With the Property and process of law as jA NO: 1 OF 9n9<; Petition under Section 151 ppp r->r-. • xi in the affidavit filed in support of the peLrlThl Vr^ "^""'"^'onces stated direct the Respondents and the r agenrsf^'amf through them, from interfering with the Pet,W coercive steps, including demolition d/-1-326, Trunk Road Ongole, person claiming s possession or taking property situated at D No pending disposal of the Writ Petition any of the D.No. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.SHAIK ASIF Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1-GP MUNCIPAL ADMNAND The Court made the following: O^ER: URBAN DEVAP Heard Sri Shaik Asif, learned Assistant Government Development appearing for the counsel for the petitioner and the Administration learned Pleader for Municipal and Urban respondents. 2- It is stated by both the learned Writ Petition is W.P.No.21175 of 2025, order in the present counsel that the issue raised in the Court in passing of the same squarely covered by the and thus order passed by this prays the Court for case. 3 3. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of, in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.21175 of 2025 be no order as to costs. dated 08.09.2025. There shall 4. Registry is directed to W.P.No.21175 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025 append a copy of the order in to this order. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary. Municipal ueveiopment Department. State of Andhra Pradesh Velagapudi, Arnaravati 2. The Commissioner, Ongole Municipal Corporation, District. 3. One CC to Sri Shaik Asif, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies. (Along with a copy of the order in W.P No.21175 of 2025, dated 08.09.2025 to this order) Administration and Urban Secretariat, Ongole, Prakasam and Urban Development, ssb HIGH COURT DATED:17/09/2025 ORDER WP No. 25261 OF 2025 C?-' o 2 2 SEP 2025 m Current section ^ft ioESPATCvSS^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS 6APHC010408582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21175/2025 Between: 1.KOTA SRIMANNARAYANA, S/0. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/0 37-1-316 ANDHRA COFFEE, TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 87, NEAR ENUGU CHETTU, ONGOLE 523001. 28-1- ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE OPP. CHURCH CENTER, ONGOLE. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, REP. BY ITS ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The cdurt made the following: 2 ORDER:. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action marking the petitioner’ nd of the 2 respondent in square yards of land in wherein the petitioner is running a and General Stores bearing s property admeasuring 54 T.S.No.49 along with a RCC roof structure, shop in the name and style of Andhra Coffee Door No.37-1-316. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner iIS pressurized by the 2"'* respondent and their officers to accept the TDR certificates in return for handing over 54 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 purposes. It is also submitted that the petitioner for public the TDR bonds would not meet the compensation for the land acquired. requirements of the petitioner as an alternative to 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the provisions of the the 2nd respondent would have to follow Compensation and Right to Fair Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation Resettlement Act, 2013, in the event the acquire any portion of the petitioner’ 4- The learned Standing Counsel and respondent authorities intend to s land for public purposes. 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 3 bonds @1:4 which can be utilized by the petitioner 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 property. The 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 petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2"^^ respondent. Section 145 deals with acquisition of immovable property by agreement. Section 147 deals with procedure when immovable property cannot be 5. 6. 7. acquired by agreement. Section 145 empowers the Corporation to acquire any property on 8. payment of compensation. 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 9. to coercive tactics of the respondent authorities. 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 10. petitioner to accept the offer landowners do of TDR bonds. However, in cases where the not accept the TDR bonds > offered by the respondent would have to follow the authorities, the respondent authorities the Right to Fair provisions of Transparency in Land Acquisition, Compensation and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. On these considerations, the writ petition i respondent authorities 11. IS disposed off directing the not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner property without following due process of law, that the respondent authorities acquiring the land of the petitioner. There shall making it further clear shall have to follow the Act 30 of 13 while be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 12. JUSTICE HARINATH.N 08.09.2025 PNS