APHC010593822023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 30758/2023 Between: 1. KONDAVALASA NARASINGA RAO, S/O. LATE SOMULU, AGED 77 YEARS, HINDU, RESIDING AT D.NO 6-64, PADMANABHAPURAM, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,VENKATAPURAM, GOPALAPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAMDISTRICT - 530 029. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 238 2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, TERMED BHAVAN, ASILMETTA JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 003 3. THE CHIEF CITY PLANNER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TENNETI BHAVAN, ASILMETTA JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 003 ...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 topleased to issue an order or direction, in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in laying a 40 feet wide public road through the petitioner's land to an extent of 1,537.8 Sq.Mtrs or Ac 0.38 cents in Sy.No.76/3 of Venkatapuram Village, Gopalapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without issuing notice, without following due process of law and without paying compensation as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Metropolitan Regions and Urban Development Authority Act, 2016, Right to Fair Compensation and Transjiarency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. A.P. Building Rules, 2017 and the Greater Plyderabad Municipal Cotqioration Act, 1955 and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pay compensate WP.No.30758 of 2023 the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 or by granting Transferable Development Rightsin the ratio of 1isto4, as per amended Rule 168 of A.P.Building Rules, 2017, for the land effected by the 40 feet wide road i.e. an extent of 1,537.8 Sq.Mtrs or Ac 0.38 cents at Sy.No.76/3 of Venkatapuram Village, Gopalapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, in a time bound manner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to fix a time frame for finalizing the proposals pending under note file Rc.No.537/2020/ACP-Vl (E-Office Computer No:241585), in accordance with amended rule 168 of A.P. Building Rules, 2017and pass IA 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 pleased to receive the Counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: WP.No.30758 of 2023 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.30758 of 2023 ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in laying a 40 feet wide road over the petitioner’s land whereby land admeasuring 1537 Square meters or Ac.0.38cents of land in Survey Number 76/3 without payment of any compensation or issuing any TDR Certificate proportionate to the land of the petitioner which was affected in the road widening. 2. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent took up the road widening work during the year 2012-2015 and in a highhanded manner without following the procedure as contemplated under Act 30 of 2013. In this regard the petitioner made several representations and 2nd respondent had initiated proposals for providing compensation subject to the petitioner executing a registered gift deed in favour of 2nd respondent for affected portion of land. 3. The 2nd respondent also sought a clarification from the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam regarding the genuineness of claim of the petitioner over the land which was affected in the road widening. The Joint Collect in the reply dated 12.10.2021 had clarified and confirmed the title, ownership and possession of the petitioner. The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam also clarified that WP.No.30758 of 2023 no compensation was paid to the petitioner. The ryotwari patta issued to the petitioner was found genuine on verification from the Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). However, the petitioner was not granted the compensation for the land acquired. 4. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent unilaterally decided to grant TDR Certificates at 1:1 ratio. It is submitted that without consent of the petitioner, the respondent could not have unilaterally decided the ratio of TDR bonds, that apart the petitioner would have to express willingness to accept the TDR bonds instead of the compensation under Act 30 of 2013. It is also submitted that the respondents cannot force the petitioner to accept TDR bonds at the ratio unilaterally arrived at by the 2nd respondent. 5. It is also submitted that as per the amended rule 168 of AP Building Rules, 2017, the petitioner would be entitled for TDR bonds equivalent to 400% of the affected area. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent is contemplating to issue TDR bonds in terms of the repealed, inoperative provision of Rule 17 of the AP Building Rules, 2017. 6. Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter and submits that the writ petition is not WP.No.30758 of 2023 maintainable as the petitioner has approached this Court after a considerable delay. 7. It is submitted that road widening was undertaken in pursuance of the Master Plan and that the TDR bonds at the ratio of 1:4 cannot be granted to the petitioner as the road was laid during the year 2012 to 2014 and GOMs.No.119, dated 28.03.2017 cannot be made applicable. It is submitted that TDR rights at 1:1 ratio would have to be considered for the petitioner as the petitioner’s land was required for public purposes to facilitate accesses to roads and drains. 8. It is not disputed in the counter that the petitioner is the owner of the land and the rytwari patta was issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have recommended for grant of TDR at 1:1 ratio and that the petitioner is not entitled for TDR at the ratio of 1:4. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the material on record. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.0.38 cents of the petitioner was affected in the road widening undertaken by the 2nd respondent. It is also not in dispute that no WP.No.30758 of 2023 proceedings for acquisition of the land of the petitioner were initiated while laying the road. In order to ascertain the title of the petitioner, correspondence between the 2nd respondent and the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam was also exchanged. The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam had sought information from the revenue authorities and ascertain the title, ownership and possession of the petitioner over the said land. 11. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd respondent expressed its willingness to issue TDR to the petitioner. The only question which is required to be adjudicated by this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled for TDR at 1:1 ratio as offered by the 2nd respondent or 1:4 ratio as claimed by the petitioner. 12. Clause 17 of GOMs.No.168, dated 07.04.2012 deals with grant of Transferable Development Right and reads as follows ; GRANT OF TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT: (a) Transferable Development Right” (TDR) can be awarded only when such lands are transferred to the local body / Urban Development Authority as the case may be by way of registered gift deed. The award would be in the form of a TDR certificate issued by the Competent Authority / Sanctioning Authority. (b) Grant of TDR can be considered by the Competent Authority / Sanctioning Authority for the following areas subject to the owners complying with the conditions of development above, as per the following norms: (i) For the Master Plan Road / Road Development Plan undertaken and developed: equivalent to 200% of built WP.No.30758 of 2023 up area of such area surrendered. For conservation and development of lakes / water bodies / nalas foreshores & Recreational buffer development with greenery, etc: equivalent to 100% of built up area of such recreational buffer area developed at his cost. (ii) For Heritage buildings and heritage precincts maintained with adaptive reuse: equivalent to 100% of built up area of such site area. (c) The TDR may be arrived at on the basis of relative land value and equivalent amount in both export and Import areas, as per the Registration Department records. The Competent Authority shall have the discretion in the matter of applicability of TDR. The TDR shall not be allowed in unauthorized buildings / structures / constructions and shall be considered only after the land is vested with the local authority / UDA. The TDR certificate issued would be valid or utilized / disposed only within the concerned local body area and as per guidelines and conditions prescribed. 13. The amended Rule 168(e) reads as follows ; 168(e) – For the sites required by the Government/ULB for weaker sections or social housing, any other urban infrastructure development such as water supply, sewerage, education, health or any public purpose: equivalent to 400% of such areas surrendered. However, in case of sites covered by existing slums wherein, ULB proposed for removal and redevelopment of slums with a sanctioned redevelopment plan for the area proposed to surrender in such cases land owners is eligible for 100% of such areas covered by slums. In above such cases the proposal shall be submitted to Government with justification report through the DTCP for approval before considering for issue of TDR. 14. The petitioner’s property was taken over without initiating any proceedings of acquisition as is generally done by the authorities when the property belonging to third parties is required for public WP.No.30758 of 2023 purposes. The respondents could not have resorted to such highhanded activity. 15. The 2nd respondent ought to have acted in accordance with law for acquisition of land of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent also has neglected to act in accordance with law and grant the TDR certificates to the petitioner even after receipt of clarification from the Joint Collector, with regard to the title of the property and entitlement of the petitioner for TDR bonds. 16. The road was laid in the year 2014-2015. Had the respondents issued TDR bonds at 1:2 at that point of time things should have been entirely different. After amendment to Rule 168 of AP Building Rules in the year 2018, the respondents cannot be justified in stating that the Rules amended in the year 2018 would have to be applied prospective for the lands acquired for public purposes after the date of amendment of the Rules. 17. It is not the case that the petitioner was awarded TDR bonds as per GOMs.No.168, 07.04.2012 the then prevailing AP Building Rules, 2012 and that the petitioner is claiming for grant of additional TDR bonds in pursuance of the GOMs.No.223, dated 09.07.2018 and claiming the TDR bonds at the ratio of 1:4. WP.No.30758 of 2023 18. The petitioner would have been entitled for TDR bonds at the rate of 1:2 ratio even as per the 2012 Building Rules as the land of the petitioner was required for the Road Development Plan. The 2nd respondent did not issue the TDR bonds to the petitioner at the ratio of 1:2 at that point of time i.e., soon after the road was laid. The petitioner also did not execute the registered gift deed in favour of 2nd respondent as is required for claiming the TDR bonds, as there was a cloud of suspicion with regard to the title of the petitioner over the property raised by the 2nd respondent. 19. The 2nd respondent ought to have acted soon after receiving the clarification from the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam or from the competent revenue authorities. The unfound suspicion on the title of the petitioner would not entitle the 2nd respondent to claim that the petitioner would not be entitled for claiming TDR bonds under the amended Rule 168(1)(2)(a). 20. As the land of the petitioner was taken for public purpose for expansion of road, the claim of the petitioner would fall under Rule 168(1)(2)(a) and would be entitled for TDR at the ratio of 1:4. As the petitioner did not execute the gift deed in favour of the 2nd respondent for the area affected for public purpose, the petitioner shall execute a gift deed in favour of the 2nd WP.No.30758 of 2023 respondent to the extent of the land which was affected for expansion of road for public purposes and on such execution, the 2nd respondent shall issue TDR bonds at the ratio of 1:4 to the petitioner. 21. On these considerations, the writ petition is disposed off directing the 2nd respondent to issue TDR bonds at the ratio of 1:4 to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the execution of gift deed by the petitioner to the extent of land admeasuring 1537 Square meters or Ac.0.38 cents which was affected for road widening for public purposes. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off without costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 25.09.2025 KGM WP.No.30758 of 2023 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.30758 OF 2023 Dated 25.09.2025 KGM