APHC010524372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. BODAPATI VENKATA SURYA PRAKASH, S/O SRINIVASA RAO (LATE), AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, R/O. 47 PALEM, OPPOSITE TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. BEING MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN AND MOTHER BODAPATI PADMIN SRINIVASA RAO (LATE), AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O 47 36/1, PAKEER PALEM, OPPOSITE TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, OPP. CHURCH CENTER, ONGOLE. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 26964/2025 BODAPATI VENKATA SURYA PRAKASH, S/O SRINIVASA RAO (LATE), AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, R/O. 47-1-36/1, PAKEER PALEM, OPPOSITE TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. BEING MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN AND MOTHER BODAPATI PADMIN SRINIVASA RAO (LATE), AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O 47 36/1, PAKEER PALEM, OPPOSITE TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, OPP. CHURCH CENTER, ONGOLE. ...RESPONDE Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER BODAPATI VENKATA SURYA PRAKASH, S/O SRINIVASA RAO 36/1, PAKEER PALEM, OPPOSITE TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. BEING MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN AND MOTHER BODAPATI PADMINI, W/O SRINIVASA RAO (LATE), AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O 47-1- 36/1, PAKEER PALEM, OPPOSITE TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2ND respondent in a) giving markings to petitioners property i.e 20 Sq. yards of land along with RCC G PLUS 1 structure with D. No. 37-1- 87, Assessment No. 1035002460, in T.S. No 75, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam Districtb) pressurising the petitioner to accept TDR certificates by handing over a portion of the property including land and structure to the 2ND respondent for proposed road widening of the Main road from Trunk Road Church Centre to Keerthi Medical Shop to a width of 100 feet as per road development plan and c) initiating steps to dispossess petitioner from the land of said property by demolishing the structure without following the procedure under The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 not to interfere with the possession and ownership of Petitioner over his property without following the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and 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 direct the 2nd respondent and its staff not to interfere with possession enjoyment of petitioner over his property i.e 20 Sq. yards of land along with RCC G+1 structure with D. No. 37-1- 87, Assessment No. 1035002460, in T.S. No 75, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District in any manner including trespass, dispossession, demolition or blocking the ingress/ egress from property and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.26964 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. The present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 2nd respondent in marking the petitioner’s property, an extent of 20 square yards of land along with RCC G+1 structure with D.No.37-1-87, Assessment No.1035002460, T.S.No.75, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District, for acquisition and pressuring the petitioner to accept TDR certificates in lieu of handing over the said portion of the property for road widening and further initiating steps to dispossess the petitioner from the property without following the due procedure contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property, having acquired the same through a duly registered sale deed dated 08.07.2011. The petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is further submitted that the Government approved the Ongole Municipal Corporation Master Plan and that the 2nd respondent, in the month of July 2025, demarcated a portion of the petitioner’s property as affected under the scheme and served notice on the tenant of the premises and that the 2nd respondent has been insisting the petitioner to accept the TDR certificates and informed that demolition would be commenced shortly. 3. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for Ongole Municipal Corporation. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21175 of 2025 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: “….the writ petition is disposed off directing the respondent authorities not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property without following due process of law, making it further clear that the respondent authorities shall have to follow the Act 30 of 13 while acquiring the land of the petitioner.” 5. 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 08.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21175 of 2025. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. Registry is directed to annex a copy of the order in W.P. No.21175 of 2025 to the order in the present writ petition. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.26964 OF 2025 Dated 25.09.2025 KGM