APHC010566352022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 34504 OF 2022 Between: Sk.Kuthizun ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P N MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3. S PRANATHI The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 34504 OF 2022 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the TDR bonds for the land taken for Inner Ring Road in D.No. 115/2 an extent of 83-55 Sq.yds out of 180 Sq.yds north side situated in Koritepadu Village, presently Block 11, Guntur Municipal Corporation area open house site, vide Registered Gift Deed dated 23.05.2017 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents to issue TDR bonds for value of the said land and pass such other orders....” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner claims to be absolute owner of the house site to an extent of 180 Sq.yds out of Ac. 1.34 cents in D.No.115/2 situated in Koritepadu Village (erstwhile Gorantala Grama Panchayat) Block 11, Guntur Municipal Corporation Area. While so, the respondents have made a proposal to lay Inner Ring Road, Phase-II for Amaravati to JKC College Road for development of 80 ft., road. In that context, the house site of the petitioner measuring 83-55 Sq.yds was taken by the respondents in the year 2015. Subsequently, the petitioner has executed a Settlement Deed dated 03.05.2017 in favour of Respondent No.4 to an extent of Ac. 83-55 Sq.yds. As TDR bonds have not been issued, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The Respondent No.4 initially filed Counter-Affidavit stating that an extent of Ac. 1.34 cents located in D.No. 115/2 situated in Koritepadu Village originally belongs to Mr. Shaik Ghouse Saheb and the legal representatives of said Mr. Shaik Ghouse Saheb has executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) vide document No. 88 of Book 4 in 1996 in favour of Mr. Penumatsa Rama Chandra Raju with a power to alienate the said property covered under the said document. Pursuant to the proposal for formation of road, the GPA has submitted a Consent Form dated 18.03.2009 surrendering the land to an extent of 1574.50 Sq.yds to the erstwhile VGTM UDA in lieu of TDR bonds for road widening. The TDR bonds in the ratio of 1:1 as prevailing in the year 2009 were issued to Mr. Penumatsa Rama Chandra Raju. It is further pleaded that VGTM UDA was reconstituted as AP CRDA and after reconstitution; on 21.04.2015 the petitioner has approached the Respondent No.4 with a request to issue TDR bonds claiming title over the said property. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.4 placed on record the Written Instructions dated 22.03.2025, digitally signed by the Joint Director of AP CRDA, wherein it was stated that TDRs were issued on 27.04.2009 in favour of Sk. Khadar Bi, Sk.Chand Begam, Sk.Khaza Begam, Sk. Mohammad Rafi, Sk. Khazapeer, Sk.Rizvaana represented by GPA Holder Mr. Penumatsa Rama Chandra Raju to an extent of 1574.50 Sq.yds in 1:1 ratio. 5. After, the petitioner made a representation for issuance of TDR, the Respondent No.4 had addressed a letter dated 18.06.2015 vide E1-545/2007 to the Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation regarding utilization of the status of the TDR bonds, which were given to Mr. Penumatsa Rama Chandra Raju. 6. In reply, the Commissioner, Guntur Muncipal Corporation has stated that TDR Bond No. 000138, 000139 and 00140 were utilized by the said individual and remaining two bonds i.e 000137 and 000141 are not utilized. Consequently, a Show-Cause Notice was issued to Mr. Penumatsa Rama Chandra Raju on 03.12.2015 stating that he had obtained TDR bonds with false information and as to why action should not be initiated against him. 7. In response to the Show Cause Notice, Mr. Penumatsa Rama Chandra Raju had submitted a reply dated 01.03.2016 stating that he returned the TDR bond No. 000137 to an extent of 374.50 sq.yds to the respondent. Whereas, TDR bond No. 000141 was missing in his office. In lieu of missing TDR bond No. 000141, the said individual is said to have submitted two bonds of 200 Sq.yds each issued to him for surrender of his land in D.No.1/4, Gorantla with bond No.000243 and 000244 and requested the Respondent No.4 to accept the said TDR bonds. 8. The Respondent No.4 had issued a notice dated 22.08.2016 to the Mr. Penumatsa Rama Chandra Raju stating that he surrendered the TDR bonds for the value for 400 Sq.yds in Gorantala D.No.1/4 of IRR Phase and the value of those TDR bonds is comparatively less and the said individual was called upon to surrender TDR bonds as per market value of Koritapadu Village. However, no reply was received from the said individual. 9. Heard Mr. P.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 10. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the above narration of facts indicate that there is no dispute with regard to ownership of the petitioner over the subject land and attempts were made to defraud her right in the subject property. The objection that TDRs were not returned and likely to be utilized by third party, it would not be a ground for the Respondent to deny the TDR bonds to the petitioner, as the petitioner cannot be said to be fault. 11. The erstwhile Respondent No.4 i.e VGTM UDA ought to have verified the ownership documents before issuing TDR bonds as per G.O.Ms.No.678, dated 07.09.2007. The acceptance of the land from a person, who does not have title to the property and issuing TDR bonds in his favour is an error committed by the then Authority and the petitioner cannot be faulted for the same. 12. In view of aforementioned discussion, the Respondents are directed to issue TDR bonds for the land covered under the Gift Deed bearing 23.05.2017 in favour of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. The Respondents are at liberty to cancel the TDRs given in favour of Mr. Penumatsa Rama Chandra Raju, in lieu of subject property. 13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 02.04.2025 KK