APHC010006562021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 539/2021 Between: 1. DR. D.SUBBA RAO,, S/O. LATE ANANDA RAO, AGE D.NO-55-14-109/1, APSEB COLONY, SEETHAMMADARA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. SMT. DR. D.VIJAYA GOWRI,, W/O SUBBA RAO, AGE D.NO-55-14-109/1, APSEB COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 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 a Writ order or direction more particularly on in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the respondents in taking for an extent of 405 Sq.Yds of land forcibly from the Petitioners by way of gift deed vide document No.797/2014 dt widening and not paying the compensation / TDR cert arbitrary, illegal, without following land acquisition proceedings and also violate of Art.14 and 19 (1) (1) and Act.31 of part relating to right to property and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation for the land gifted vide document No.797/2014 dt 24.02.2014 to the Corporation basing on the present market value along with registration charges with an interest of 18 percent till the date of payment or to issue the bonds under the sche IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 direct the 2' respondent to consider the representation 07,10.2019, 15.06.2020 and 10.07.2020 for payment of Compensation / TDR certificates for an extent of 405 Sq.Yds gifted vide document No.797/2014 dt 24,02.2014 and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 539/2021 DR. D.SUBBA RAO,, S/O. LATE ANANDA RAO, AGE- 109/1, APSEB COLONY, SEETHAMMADARA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. SMT. DR. D.VIJAYA GOWRI,, W/O SUBBA RAO, AGE- 109/1, APSEB COLONY, SEETHAMMADARA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 a Writ order or direction more particularly on in the amus, declare the action of the respondents in taking for an extent of 405 Sq.Yds of land forcibly from the Petitioners by way of gift deed vide document No.797/2014 dt- 24.02.2014 for the purpose of road widening and not paying the compensation / TDR certificates as highly arbitrary, illegal, without following land acquisition proceedings and also violate of Art.14 and 19 (1) (1) and Act.31 of part-III of fundamental rights relating to right to property and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation for the land gifted vide document No.797/2014 dt 24.02.2014 to the Corporation basing on the present market value along with registration charges with an interest of 18 percent till the date of payment or to issue the bonds under the scheme of TDR and pass 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 direct the 2' respondent to consider the representation 07,10.2019, 15.06.2020 and 10.07.2020 for payment of Compensation / TDR certificates for an extent of 405 Sq.Yds gifted vide document No.797/2014 dt IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N - 67 YRS, R/O 109/1, APSEB COLONY, SEETHAMMADARA, - 64 YRS, R/O SEETHAMMADARA, ...PETITIONER(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. ...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 a Writ order or direction more particularly on in the amus, declare the action of the respondents in taking for an extent of 405 Sq.Yds of land forcibly from the Petitioners by way of gift 24.02.2014 for the purpose of road ificates as highly arbitrary, illegal, without following land acquisition proceedings and also III of fundamental rights relating to right to property and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation for the land gifted vide document No.797/2014 dt- 24.02.2014 to the Corporation basing on the present market value along with registration charges with an interest of 18 percent till the date of payment or 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 direct the 2' respondent to consider the representations dt- 07,10.2019, 15.06.2020 and 10.07.2020 for payment of Compensation / TDR certificates for an extent of 405 Sq.Yds gifted vide document No.797/2014 dt- WP.No.539 of 2021 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY(SC FOR GVMC) 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: WP.No.539 of 2021 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.539 OF 2021 ORDER : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondents in not paying compensation or issuing TDR Certificates in lieu of taking over 405 Square yards of land of the petitioners by way of a gift deed dated 24.02.2014. It is submitted that the petitioners property was required for the purpose of road widening/public purposes and the petitioners had executed a registered gift deed on 24.02.2014. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners are entitled for compensation towards the acquisition of property of the petitioners. Land admeasuring 405 Square yards was required for widening of the road. The petitioners had executed the registered gift deed as is required to facilitate the respondent corporation in utilizing the same for public purposes. 3. It is submitted that there were four other plots behind the property of the petitioners which had no proper road approach. The petitioners and the other plot owners desired to develop the property as one unit. Sri Venkata Sai Engineering and Construction approached the petitioners and the four other plot owners and came up with the proposal to construct apartments. The petitioners and the other plot owners submitted plan to the 2nd respondent seeking their approval. WP.No.539 of 2021 4. The 2nd respondent informed that a fee of Rs.26,09,510/- is required to be paid or land admeasuring 338.82 square meters would have to be gifted to the corporation. In pursuance of the said requirement, the petitioners executed gift deed to an extent of 405 Square yards from and out of the total extent of land admeasuring 444.66 Square yards. The remaining 39.66 square yards was clubbed as part and parcel of the other four plots behind the petitioners property. A registered development agreement was entered with the developer. 5. It is also submitted that after execution of the gift deed by the petitioners in favour of the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent laid the road. It is submitted that after obtaining permission for development, the builder commenced construction and completed the same. However, there was no whisper about the compensation due payable to the petitioners. 6. It is submitted that the respondent corporation cannot deny the petitioners their rightful claim for the TDR certificates or the compensation due payable on account of requirement of the petitioners property for public purposes. 7. The learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that a detailed counter is filed and that the petitioners had surrendered the site as pre-condition for obtaining building permission. It is submitted that having voluntarily surrendered the property, the petitioners cannot seek any compensation or expect issuance of any TDR bonds. It is also submitted that the petitioners obtained occupancy certificate on WP.No.539 of 2021 09.04.2019. It is submitted that the property of the petitioner was essential for providing road access for the proposed apartment complex. It was on the said understanding the application for grant of permission was entertained by the 2nd respondent. 8. It is also submitted that the petitioners cannot now seek compensation or issuance of TDR bonds after having been allotted 3000 square feet of constructed area in the ground floor facing National Highway. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that the land of the petitioners was required for public purposes i.e., road widening and the petitioners had executed the gift deed in favour of 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the general recitals in the gift deed cannot be harped upon by the respondents for denying the rightfully due compensation and places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Bommadevara Venkata Subba Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Hyderabad and others1, this Court held that right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. This Court was considering the validity of affidavit submitted by the petitioner therein stating no objection to handover the required land on free of cost for any project. It was held that the condition of not to claim any 1 2023(1) ALT 247 WP.No.539 of 2021 compensation was violative of petitioner’s right to property under Article 300-A of Constitution. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners also places reliance on Kolkata Municipal Corpn. Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also considering the right of restitution or fair compensation when a property of a person is acquired for public purposes it is the responsibility of the Courts to consider the claim for compensation of the land owners for their lands which were acquired for public purposes deserve fair and reasonable compensation. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the material on record. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioners property along with four other plots were developed as one unit into a residential apartment by the builder. The permission for construction was also sanctioned after execution of the gift deed by the petitioners. Building permission was granted on 15.04.2014 and the gift deed was executed on 24.02.2014. 13. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners also had the left over site of 39.66 square yards in their possession after execution of a gift deed for an extent of 405 square yards in favour of 2nd respondent. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners remaining site and the site behind the petitioners property was developed into a residential apartment. 2 (2024) 10 SCC 533 WP.No.539 of 2021 14. The recitals of the gift deed would have to be referred to for considering whether the gift deed executed by the petitioners carried any rider or condition precedent for grant of permission for construction of the apartment complex. The recitals of the gift deed do not indicate that the building permission was sanctioned only on the understanding that the petitioners shall execute a gift deed in favour of 2nd respondent for utilization of their property for public purposes and that such a gift is executed only for obtaining building permission. 15. The building permission also does not specifically indicate that the building permission is subject to execution of gift deed or that the building permission is issued only after taking into account the gift deed executed by the petitioners. In such circumstances, there is no justification in respondents denying payment of compensation or issuance of TDR bonds. 16. Article 300-A of Constitution of India under Chapter – IV of the Constitution protects the rights of individuals over their property subject to following of due process in depriving the property of anybody. In the event the property of an individual is required to be acquired for public purposes, the state would have to follow the laws prevailing as on date for compensating the landlord in a fair, equitable, satisfactory and adequate manner. The state cannot be empowered to buldose its way in taking over the property of an individual without paying equitable, fair, justifiable and adequate compensation. WP.No.539 of 2021 17. On the facts of this case, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had executed gift deed in lieu of grant of permission for development. There is no record to show that the petitioners have waived their claim for compensation in lieu of executing the gift deed. Even if any such document is available with the respondent, the same would have to be considered as a nullity in the eye of law as the petitioners were compelled to execute such document for obtaining building permission. Such a document or undertaking or an affidavit would not be under free will and conscious consent of the petitioners, as such, any such undertaking if any with the respondents also cannot be relied on by the respondents. 18. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners were denied and deprived of their rightful claim for compensation/TDR Certificates which they would be otherwise eligible when the road widening was taken up by the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities have laid the road in the land of the petitioners. As such, it cannot be held that land of the petitioners was gifted to the Municipality for the purpose of road access. The petitioners land was abutting the National Highway on one side and on the opposite side was connecting the four plots. The petitioners could have as well simply entered into a development agreement by clubbing their property with the other plot owners and applied for building permission. WP.No.539 of 2021 19. The respondents had laid the road in the land of the petitioners and have illegally denied payment of compensation/TDR bonds for the value of the property which was gifted by the petitioners. The petitioners have gifted property valuing about Rs.56,70,000/- as on 24.02.2014. It is completely immaterial as to what was the extent of constructed area which fell to the share of the petitioners as the same is completely unconnected and detachable with the claim of the petitioners for compensation/TDR Certificates from the 2nd respondent. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off directing the 2nd respondent to calculate the TDR certificate(s) eligibility of the petitioners for the land gifted by the petitioners and issue the TDR Certificate(s) to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:30.10.2025 KGM WP.No.539 of 2021 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.539 of 2021 Dated 30.10.2025 KGM