IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1050 OF 2025 Between: 1. Nagothi Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Nagothi Adinarayana, Aged 63 years, R/o. D.No.25-126/1, Nagarampalem, Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam District-530048. 2. Nagothi Appalanarasayya, S/o. Late Nagothi Venkataswamy, Aged 63 years, R/o. D.No.25-153/2, Nagarampalem, Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam District-530048. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Zone-1, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam. ...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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not extending the benefits to the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.223, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 09.07.2018 i for the land acquired from the Petitioner vide Gift Deed dated 05.11.2018 (Regn.No.5652 of 2018) an extent of 514.839 Sq.mtrs. in Sy.No.192/4 of Madhurawada Village, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the A.P. Building Rules 2017 and Article 14 and 300-A of constitution of India and # ■ 'consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to extend the benefits of *;G.O.Ms.No.223, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 09.07.2018 by issuing the TDR Certificate for the remaining extent of 1029.678 Sq.mtrs. of built up area, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.223, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 09.07.2018 by issuing TDR Certificate for the remaining extent of 1029.678 Sq.mtrs. built up area by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation In view of the land acquired under Gift Deed dated 05.11.2018 (Regn.No.5652 of 2018), pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRI A S C BOSE (SC FOR GVMC) The Court made the following: ORDER 1 It APHC010017962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1050/2025 Between: Nagothi Satyanarayana and another ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of A.P. and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "... ot Issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not extending the benefits to the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.223, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 09.07.2018 for the land acquired from the Petitioner vide Gift Deed dated 05.11.2018 (Regn.No.5652 of 2018) an extent of 514.839 Sq.mtrs. in Sy.No.192/4 of Madhurawada Village, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the A.P.Building Rules 2017 and Article 14 and 300-A of constitution of India and consequently direct the 2”“^ Respondent to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.223, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 09.07.2018 by issuing the TDR Certificate for the remaining extent of 1029.678 Sq.mtrs of built up area " I \ 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order, dated 08.05.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21699 of 2021 and requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under: 3. “16. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent Corporation to issue balance TDRs as per the terms of 3 G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 07.09.2018, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this Writ Petition is also disposed of, in terms of the order, dated 08.05.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21699 of 2021. There shall be no order as to costs. 4. of the order, dated 08.05.2024 Registry is directed to attach the copy passed by this Court in W.P.No.21699 of 2021 to this order. No order as to costs. 5. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ' SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal 3. The Zonal Commissioner, Corporation Zone-1, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam. 4. One CC to Sri G Rama Gopal, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri A S C Bose, SC for GVMC, Advocate [OPUC] GP for Muncipal Admn and Urban Dev, High Court of 6. Two CCs to Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies (Along with a copy of order dt. 08.05.2024 in WP No. 21699 of 2021) TF HIGH COURT DATED:24/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.1050 of 2025 1 1 FEB 2025 COi . Current Section ^ 5s£?8PATC«©^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS 1 APHC010356042021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21699/2021 Between: Nagothi Appalaraju, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.A VARALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR GVMC) 3.P RAJASEKHAR The Court made the following: ORDER The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents did not issue Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificate at 1:4 ratio as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 09.07.2018, in relation to the land in an extent of 907.19 sq.yards in Survey No.201/15 (part) and 211/2 (part) located in Revallapalem, Madhurawada village, which was surrendered to the corporation by execution of registered gift deed dated 24.10.2018 of SRO, Madhurawada village. \ 2. Heard Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel, representing learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. 3. Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel, in elaboration would submit that the petitioner's land was acquired for road widening and in the year 2018 the 2'’'* respondent directed the petitioner to execute registered settlement deed in their favour for the effected portion of the land and accordingly the petitioner executed gift deed in favour of the corporation on 24.10.2018. Though G.O.M.No.223, date 09.07.2018 was in existence as on the date of execution of gift deed by the petitioner in favour of the corporation, the 2 respondent had awarded TDR as per G.O.Ms.No.119, MA&UD, dated 28.03.2017. Since the G.O.Ms.No.223 was very much in existence as on the date of execution of the gift deed, the petitioner is entitled for the benefits of the said G.O., which stipulates awarding of TDRs at 1:4 ratio. Though the petitioner made representations dated 26.11.2018, 08.01.2019, 11.09.2019 and 14.10.2020 requesting to award TDRs in consonance with the terms of G.O.Ms.No.223, the 2"'‘ respondent did not consider the said representations stating that he is awaiting clarification from the 1^‘ respondent in that regard. The action of the respondents in not extending the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 09.07.2018, is arbitrary and in violation of the nd A.P.Building Rules and Articles 14 & 300-A of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the letter of the Commissioner addressed to the Sub Registrar dated 12.10.2018 requesting the petitioner to handover possession of site to GVMC by way of registered deed would indicate that the petitioner is in possession of the land and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 09.07.2018 which was in force as on the date of handing over possession and execution of gift deeds. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, on counter, submitted that the petitioner's subject land was acquired in the year 2015 and as on the date of the said acquisition, issuance of TDRs.is governed by G.O.Ms.No.l68, dated 07.04.2012 as per which the petitioner is entitled for getting TDRs. at 1:2 ratio only but the petitioner is claiming TDRs at 1:4 ratio by placing reliance on G.O.M.No.223, dated 09.07.2018. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the petitioner cannot claim benefits of the G.O. issued in the year 2018 with retrospective effect for the land acquired in the year 2015. petitioner having failed to execute the gift deed soon after acquisition of the land, executed gift deed in the year 2018. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own mistake in not executing gift deed till 2018 claim benefits of the G.0.223. The authorities had rightly awarded TDRs at 1:2 ratio, legally entitled to by the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.l68, dated The to 1 \ 4 07.05.2012 that was in vogue as on the date of acquisition of the land. The learned Standing counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to the memo which was filed vide USR No.23051 of 2022 and submitted that the petitioner's request for issuance of TDRs in light of G.O.Ms.No.223 was not accepted by the authorities on the ground that applicability of rules shall be interpreted in prospective manner only and since at the time of acquisition G.O.Ms.No.l68, dated 07.04.2012 holds the field and accordingly TDRs were issued to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim benefit under G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 09.07.2018. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, when the respondent authorities tried to interfere highhandedly in respect of the subject property in the year 2015, the petitioner got filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.34475 of 2015. This Court disposed of the same on 14.10.2015 by recording the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that so far no steps are taken for acquiring the land of the petitioner and as such payment of compensation does not arise and as and when the property is required, the respondent corporation shall follow due process of law, either by acquiring by consent or by following the compulsory acquisition. This itself would show that the respondent corporation did not acquire the land in the year 2015. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. Perusal of the material available on record would indicate that there dispute regarding acquisition of the land of the petitioner by the respondent corporation for road widening, but for the year of acquisition whether it is in the year 2015 or in 2018. According to the petitioner, the land was acquired in the year 2018, whereas it was in the year 2015 according to the learned Standing counsel. IS no 7. In support of his contention, the learned standing counsel placed No. 1248980/M2/2019, dated 30.03.2022 of the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department. Para-3 of the said memo reliance on a memo reads as thus: "3. After examining the report of the Commissioner, GVMC, and the report of the DTCP,AP, it is observed that the said road widening was taken up in the year 2015. The applicant's site admeasuring to an extent of 323.754 sq.mt. covered inn Sy.No.201/15 Part & 211/2 Part of Revllapalem (V) was taken over for laying of road and issued TDR. The Commissioner GVMC has already granted 1:2 TDR certification to the application in lieu of applicants site affected for laying road, since in 2015 the TDR has to be considered @ 1:2 as nr the then prevailing rules. Now the applicant is seeking TDR (g) 1:4 as per P G.O.Ms.No.223, dt. 07.09.2018 by executing and formed the road by present rules i.e. as per registered gift deed for the site already taken over GVMC by issuing TDR." 8. The above would show that the land was acquired in the year 2015. 9. Whereas, in support of his contention, the learned counsel for the of the orders passed in Writ Petition petitioner placed on record copy No.34475 of 2015 filed by the petitioner in respect of the subject land questioning the action of the respondent authorities in trying to acquire the 1 ri- \ 6 petitioner's land without prior notice and paying compensation. Operative I \ \ \ portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder: "2. When the matter is taken up, learned Standing counsel submits that so far no steps are taken for acquiring the property of the petitioner. Therefore, the question of payment of compensation does not arise. As and when property is required, the respondent- corporation shall follow the due process either by acquiring by consent or by following the compulsory acquisition. 10. The above writ petition was disposed of on 14.10.2015. The operative portion of the above said orders would make it clear that the subject land was not acquired as on the date of disposal of the writ petition on 14.10.2015. 11. Further, the petitioner placed reliance on the letter addressed by the Commissioner, GVMC, Visakhapatnam to the Sub Registrar vide RC.NO.12029/2014/L-32/ACP-I, dated 12.10.2018, copy of which is marked to the petitioner, in support of his contention. The same reads as thus: "With reference to the above, it is to inform Sri Nagathi Appala Raju, S/o. Tataabai resident of S.No.201/15 Part and 211/2 Part, Madhurawada village, Visakhapatnam, whose site is effected in 80'-00" road widening (Navodaya) to an extent of 323.745 Sq.mts. (o) 387.19 Sq.yards in S.No.211/2 of Madhurawada and 434.782 Sq.mts (or) 520.00 Sq.yards in S.No.201/15 Part of Madhurawada. The applicant is hereby requested to handover the possession of site to GVMC by way of registered deed so as to take necessary further action to lay the road in the applicant site." 12. The contents of the above letter unequivocally says that possession of the subject land remained with the petitioner as on the date of the said letter dated 12.10.2018. It is also relevant here to note that the memo relied 7 <•' on by the learned Standing counsel dated 20.12.2021 nowhere refers to any acquisition proceedings. 13. Upon perusal of the orders passed in W.P.No.34475 of 2015 dated 14.10.2015 and the letter addressed by the Commissioner, GVMC, Visakhapatnam to the Sub Registrar vide RC.No.l2029/2014/L-32/AC P-I, dated 12.10.2018 makes the things clear that the subject land was not acquired in the year 2015 as mentioned in the memo relied on by the learned Standing Counsel and moreover the land remained in possession of the petitioner as on 12.10.2018. It is relevant here to note the last two lines of the above extracted portion which says that the corporation has to take further action to lay the road in the applicant site. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the petitioner is in possession of the subject site as on 12.10.2018. 14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner executed gift deed in favour of the corporation in respect of the subject land on 24.10.2018. G.O.Ms.No.223 came into being on 07.09.2018 i.e. to say subsequent to the request made to the petitioner by the Commissioner through letter dated 12.10.2018 for handing over possession of the subject land. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get benefits as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.223 i.e. for getting TDR Certificates at 1:4 ratio of the land handed over to the corporation by way of execution of registered gift deed. 8 15. In view of the above, this writ petition can be disposed of directing the authorities to issue balance TDRs to the petitioner in lieu of handing over possession of his land in light of G.O.Ms.No.223 dated 07.09.2018. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent corporation to issue balance TDRs as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 07.09.2018, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Dt.08.05.2024. RR