APHC010509032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 27215/2025 Between: 1. MOHAMMED SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O. RAHIMAN SHAHEB, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. 37-1-166 (3), GUNTUR ROAD, VTC ONGOLE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED SHAKEER HAMEED, S/O. RAHIMAN SHAHEB, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS. R/O. 8-94, LAWYERPETA, EXTENSION 9TH LINE, MANGMURU ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRI 3. MOHAMMED JAKIR AHMED, S/O. RAHIMAN SHAHEB, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC- DOCTOR, R/O. 10-2-289/95, PLOT NO.401, DURGA KANUKAMILLI APARTMENTS, SHANTHI NAGAR, MASAB TANK, VTC ASIFNAGAR, HUMAYUTNAGAR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER, GOVERNOR RD, JAKRAMA NAGAR DEVUNI CHERU, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GOVERNOR ROAD, JAKRAMA NAGAR DEVUNI 2 CHERU, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...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 one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly Respondent No. 2 and 3 in marking the Petitioners building (1341.6 Sq. Ft) and site (670.8 Sq. Ft) properties covered by Sy. No.382, 383, situated at 6th ward, 3rd block Trunk Road, Ongole Municipality, Ongole Town, Prakasam District for the purpose of demolition for road widening of Trunk Road from Church Centre to Keerthi Medical Store of Ongole City and also in issuing notice in R.O.C.No.3525/2025/G1, dated 15.07.2025 by 2nd Respondent without considering Petitioners objections, dated 22.08.2025 without following any known procedure established under the provisions of The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and the Central Act 30 of 2013 and rules framed thereunder as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of said statutory provisions and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere in any manner with said site and building properties of Petitioners and pass 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 suspend the operation of notice in R.O.C.NO.3525/2025/G1, dated 15.07.2025 issued by 2nd Respondent and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish nor evict the Petitioners from their respective buildings, site properties covered by covered byy. No.382, 383, situated at 6th ward, 3rd block Trunk Road, Ongole Municipality, Ongole Town, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PALA KARTHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in marking the petitioners’ property to an extent of 1341.6 square feet and the enclosed site property to an extent of 670.8 square feet in Sy.Nos.382 and 383, situated at 6th Ward, 3rd Block, Trunk Road, Ongole Municipality, along with an RCC building, wherein the petitioners are running a shop bearing Door No.37-1-258. 2. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are being pressurized by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their officers to accept the TDR certificates in return for handing over the properties for the purpose of road widening. It is submitted that the respondent authorities cannot force the petitioners to accept TDR bonds while acquiring the properties belonging to the petitioners for public purposes. It is also 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 respondent Nos.2 and 3 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 respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioners are issued a notice under Sections 145 and 146 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and objections of the 4 petitioners are called for, indicating that the petitioners would be issued TDR bonds @1:4 which can be utilized by the petitioners 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 properties. 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 respondent Nos.2 and 3. 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. 8. Section 145 empowers the Corporation to acquire any property on payment of compensation. 9. The insistence of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in indicating the TDR bonds as an alternative for the lands affected and required for public purposes would amount to coercive tactics of 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 essentially 5 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 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. 11. On these considerations, the writ petition is disposed off directing the respondent authorities not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ properties 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 petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 07.10.2025 PNS