\ \» ^ . APHC010490812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ^ AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY.THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 25016 OF 2025 0;iP tKf . ry \ 0 O' Between: Tunugunta Suresh, S/o TunuguntaAadhinarayana Occ. Business R/o D.No. 18-1-73/1, Trunk Road Andhra Pradesh. Aged about 59 years, Ongole, Prakasam District, ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented Municipal Administration and Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati 2. The Ongole Municipal Corporation, Represented Ongole, Prakasam District. by its Principal Secretary, Department, Urban Development by its Commissioner, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution circumstances stated i pleased to issue of India praying that in the in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court an appropriate writ, order or direction may be more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"'" Respondent in marking the Petitioner's properties situated Ongole, pressurising the Petitioner to at D.No. 18-1-73/1 Trunk Road accept TDR bonds by handing over the widening, and taking steps to demolish procedure contemplated under The Right to property through a gift deed for road the same without following the / Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and violative of Articles 14, as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, unconstitutional. 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and Consequently, direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, and not to demolish any part of the said process of law as established under the Act of 2013 property, except by strictly adhering to the due lA NO: 1 OF Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court direct the Respondents and their agents may be pleased to servants, or any person claiming through them, from interfering with the Petitioner s possession or taking any situated at D.No.18-1- coercive steps, including demolition of the property 73/1 Trunk Road Ongole, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK ASIF Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC FOR municipal corporations The Court made the following order: / / - / APHC010490812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3457] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 25016/2025 Between: Tunugunta Suresh ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SHAIKASIF Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT(S) -2- W.P. No.25016of 2025 Date of order:16.09.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.25016 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. The present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the respondent in marking the petitioner’s nd action of the 2 propertyD. No. 18-1-73/1, 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 registered settlement deed dated 24.07.2020. 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 2''‘^respondent, in the month of July \ -3- W.P. No.25016of2025 Date of order;16.09.2025 2025, demarcated affected under the scheme and that the 2"^ respondent has accept the TOR certificates and a portion of the petitioner’ s property as on the petitioner been insisting the petitioner informed that demolition and served notice to would be commenced shortly 3. Heard the submissions of the petitionerand the learned learned counsel for the standing counsel for Ongole Municipal Corporation. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the would submit that the issue involved in this squarely covered by the order dated petitioner writ petition is 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, learned counsel The same iIS not disputed by the appearing for the Respondents. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under: ■■• ■the writ petition is disposed off directino the enjoyment of the property without following due making it further i authorities shall have while acquiring the land petitioner’s process of law, clear that the respondent to follow the Act 30 of 13 of the petitioner.” 5. In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, •bis writ petition is also disposed of, in terms of the order, dated -4- / W.P. No.25016of 2025 Da';e of order:16.09.2025 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 thi^ writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Commissioner, Ongole Municipal Corporation, District. 3. One CC to Sri Shaik Asif, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies. (Along with a copy of the order in W.P. No.21175 of 2025 to the order in the present writ petition) and Urban Secretariat, Ongole, Prakasam Development, ssb r high court DATED: 16/09/2025 ORDER WPNo. 25016 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS 6APHC010408582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21175/2025 Between: 1.KOTA SRIMANNARAYANA, S/0. SATYANARAYANA. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/0 37-1-316, ANDHRA COFFEE, TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 28-1- 87, NEAR ENUGU CHETTU, ONGOLE 523001. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OPP. CHURCH CENTER, ONGOLE. BY ITS OFFICE, ...RESPONDENT(S): Counselfor the Petitioner: 1.SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI 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: 2 /'/ ORDER:- / // The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 2 nd respondent in marking the petitioner’s property admeasuring 54 square yards of land in T.S.No.49 along with a RCC roof structure, wherein the petitioner i shop in the name and style of Andhra Coffee and General Stores Door No.37-1-316. / IS running a bearing 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner i: pressurized by the 2^*^ respondent and their officers to accept the TDR certificates in return for handing over 54 square yards property for the of road widening. It is submitted that the respondent authorities the petitioner to accept TDR bonds while IS purpose cannot force acquiring the property belonging to the petitioner for public purposes. It is also submitted that the TDR bonds would not meet the requirements of the petitioner as an alternative to compensation for the land acquired. The learned counsel for the 2"'’ respondent would have to follow the 3. petitioner further submits that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in the event the respondent authorities intend to acquire any portion of the petitioner’s land for public purposes. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2 that the petitioner is issued nd respondent submits a notice under Sections 145 and 146 of the Act, 1955, and objections of the petitioner are called for, indicating that the petitioner would be issued TDR Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation bonds @1:4 which can be utilized by the petitioner or could be put to sale and liquidated subsequently. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities would follow the procedure contemplated under Sections 145 and 146 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and accordingly this writ petition can be disposed of by recording the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel that the respondent authorities shall follow the provisions of Chapter V of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 relating to acquisition of property. The Sections 145, 146 and 147 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 relate to the power and procedure for acquisition of immovable property. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2"'^ respondent. 6. Section 146 deals with acquisition of immovable property by agreement. 7 Section 147 deals with procedure when immovable property cannot be acquired by agreement. S. Section 145 empowers the Corporation to payment of compensation. 9. The insistence of the 2"'' respondent in indicating the TDR bonds as an alternative for the land affected and required for public purpose would to coercive tactics of the respondent authorities, view of Section 147 of the Act of the Municipal Corporation, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, would have to be essentially followed by the respondent authorities. It is always open to the acquire any property on amount 10. In in Land // 4 petitioner to accept the offer of TDR bonds. However, in cases where the landowners do not accept the TDR bonds offered by the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities would have to follow the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. On these considerations, the writ petition is disposed off directing the respondent authorities not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner property without following due process of law, making it further clear that the respondent authorities shall have to follow the acquiring the land of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 4 // 11. Act 30 of 13 while 12. JUSTICE HARINATH.N 08.09.2025 PNS