APHC010468522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 23711/2025 Between: 1. POTTI VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O POTTI RANGANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O 23-1-300, GANDHI ROAD, PR COMPLEX ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. POTTI RAVI KUMAR,, S/O POTTI RANGANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O 23-1-300, GANDHI ROAD, PR COMPLEX ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. POTTI RAGHURAM,, S/O POTTI RANGANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O 23-1-90, GANDHI ROAD ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. POTTI SUBBA RAO,, S/O POTTI RANGANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEEIRS, R/O 23-1-300, GANDHI ROAD, PR COMPLEX ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 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. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in marking the petitioners’ property, admeasuring 48 square yards of land along with an RCC building, wherein the petitioners are running a shop bearing Door Nos.37-1-288 & 37-1-289, Assessment No.1035001994. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are being pressurized by the 2nd respondent and their officers to accept TDR certificates in return for handing over the 48 square yards property for the purpose of road widening. It is submitted that the respondent authorities cannot force the petitioners to accept TDR bonds while acquiring the property belonging to the petitioners for public purposes. It is further submitted that the TDR bonds would not meet the requirements of the petitioners as an alternative to compensation for the land acquired. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the 2nd respondent would have to follow 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 petitioners’ land for public purposes. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioners were issued a notice under Sections 145 and 146 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and objections of the petitioners were called for, indicating that the petitioners would be issued TDR bonds @1:4, which can be utilized by the petitioners or sold and liquidated 4 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. 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 petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 6. Section 146 deals with acquisition of immovable property by agreement. 7. Section 147 deals with the procedure when immovable property cannot be acquired by agreement. 8. Section 145 empowers the Corporation to acquire any property on payment of compensation. 9. The insistence of the 2nd respondent in indicating the TDR bonds as an alternative for the land affected and required for public purposes would amount to coercive tactics by the respondent authorities. 10. In view of Section 147 of the Municipal Corporation Act, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, would have to be necessarily followed by the respondent authorities. It is always open to the petitioners to accept the offer of TDR bonds. However, in cases where the landowners do 5 not accept the TDR bonds offered by the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities shall follow the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 11. On these considerations, the writ petition is disposed off, directing the respondent authorities not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ property without following due process of law, making it further clear that the respondent authorities shall have to follow Act 30 of 2013 while acquiring the land of the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt: 23.09.2025 SR