APHC010328832020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21811/2020 Between: 1. VELAGAPUDI VIMALAMMA,, W/O LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O D. NO. 23-58, NEAR BOSE STATUE, YANAMALAKUDURU, PENAMALURU MANDALAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. J. V. V. SUBBA RAO,, S/O PARSU RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O D. NO. 2-206, OPP. KENNEDY HIGH SCHOOL, KANURU, PENAMALURU MANDALAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. ALLU SATYANARAYANA REDDY,, S/O LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC- RETD. EMPLOYEE, R/O FLAT NO. 101, ASHOKA RESIDENCY, MYTHRI NAGAR, BACK SIDE TO METRO, OPP. SAIBABA TEMPLE, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. 4. AVVARI ALIVELAMMA,, W/O LATE AWARI RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O D. NO. 73-4-6, THOTAVARI STREET, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA-10. 5. PALLIPATI DURGA BAI,, W/O P. D. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O D. NO. 73-4-39, THOTAVARI STREET, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA-10. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S PRINCIPLE SECRETARY (MAANDUD), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, 2 VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM. 3. VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY IT'S COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA 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 WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to DECLARE the endorsement in Rc. No. G6-12A/2019- 121828, Rc. No. G6-12A/2019-121824, Rc. No. G6-12A/2019-121836, Rc. No. G6-12A/2019-121831, (served on us in the month of February, 2020) denying TDR Bonds in 1-4 ratio in lieu of payment of just compensation towards acquiring our lands in R. S. No. 476/5 covered by 718.71 sq. yards (belongs to 1st petitioner), 214 sq. yards in D/ No. 48-16-30/11C (belongs to 2nd petitioner), 214 sq. yards in D/ No. 48-16-30/4 (belongs to 3rd petitioner), 214 sq. yards in D/ No. 48-16-6-30/C (belongs to 4th and 5th petitioners) situated in R. S. No. 476/5 as per AP Building Rules, 2017 as amended by Act, 2017 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case and in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 3rd respondent to consider our cases for issuance of TDR bonds at 1-4 ratio as per AP Building Rules, 2017 as amended in 2018 in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 PERMIT the petitioners to file the Additional documents viz.,TDR bonds and Google Photos as Ex.P.9 & P10 in the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice 3 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 bring me on record as being legal representative of deceased 1st petitioner as the proposed 6th petitioner in the above writ petition and in all miscellaneous petitions in interest of justice 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 grant leave in filing this reply affidavit and permit the petitioners by granting special leave for receiving the reply affidavit by this Hon’ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P RAJASEKHAR 2. T S VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) 3. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 4. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC WRIT PETITION NO: 26597/2025 Between: 1. THOTAKURA SAMRAJYAM, W/O (LATE)KOTESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE R/O D.NO.57-6-8/3. PATAMATA. VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2) 2. THOTAKURA SAMBASIVA RAO,, S/O ROSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE. R/O VANNADEVI VILLAGE. SATTENAPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3) 3. THOTAKURA PUNNA RAO, S/O ROSAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 4 OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O VANNADEVI VILLAGE. SATTENAPALLI MANDAL. GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY (MAUD), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2) 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM. 3) 3. VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA. KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4) 4. ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNADISTRICT ...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 Writ order or direction particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the endorsement given by 4th respondent in Rc.No.G6-12D/2019-121833 issued to 1 and Endorsement Rc.No.G6SpandanaNo.12B/2019-121830, issued to 2nd 3rd petitioner signed on 06-09-2019 by denying TDR Bonds in 1 4 ratio in lieu of payment of just compensation towards acquiring our lands to an extent of 200 Sq.yds in Door No.48-16-6-30/C, Bailemvari Veedhi, Mahanadu Road of 1st Petitioner and land to an extent of 260 Sq.yds in RS No.476/1P Part, Door No. 183, Mahanadu Road of 2nd 3rd petitioners as per AP Building Rules- 2017 as amended by Act, 2017 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against to the principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondents 3 4 to issue 1 4 ratio TDR Bonds to the petitioners as considered in other cases and pass such other orders or further orders as may deem fit and proper and such other order or orders just and necessary in the circumstances of the case more petitioner 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 direct the 4th respondents to consider and issue TDR Bonds 1:4 5 ratio as per AP Building Rules -2017 amended in 2018 pending disposal of writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T S VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC The Court made the following: 6 COMMON ORDER:- The petitioners are residing in properties abutting the main road, situated at Ballemvari Veedhi, Mahanadu road. The respondent authorities intended to extend the existing road and have acquired the properties which were affected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent authorities have laid a road and the petitioners were issued TDR Bonds in the ratio of 1:2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents have exhibited different yardsticks for different property owners and similarly placed property owners were issued TDR Bonds in the ratio of 1:4. The respondents have issued TDR Bonds @ 1:4 after some of the affected landowners approached this Court and filed writ petitions and batch and the writ petitions and batch were disposed off by directing the respondent authorities to issue TDR Bonds after negotiating with the petitioners therein. Thereafter, the respondents have issued TDR Bonds in the ratio of 1:4. 3. It is submitted that, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, though they are similarly placed have been issued TDR Bonds only in the ratio of 1:2 and the respondent authorities have not provided any justification for this discrimination. It is further submitted that the petitioners have furnished the names of the landowners who are initially issued TDR Bonds @ 1:2 as many as 12 property owners were initially issued TDR Bonds @ 1:2 and subsequently, they were issued revised TDR Bonds @ 1:4. However, the 7 petitioners were denied such benefit for reasons best known to the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a learned Single Judge of this Court had considered a similar issue in W.P.No.2734 of 2019, wherein the neighbors of the petitioners therein were issued TDR Bonds @ 1:4 and the petitioners there were discriminated. This Court directed consideration of the fresh representation of the petitioners therein for issuing of TDR Bonds @ 1:4. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, on written instructions, submits that the petitioners’ requests cannot be considered since G.O.Ms.No.180, dated 01.10.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 09.07.2018, came into effect in the year 2018 and that the acquisition of the petitioners’ property was much prior to that and in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.168, the TDR Bonds were issued in the ratio of 1:2 and that the petitioners are accepted the same. It is also stated that the petitioners cannot paying claim parity with other landowners who had surrendered their land subsequent to the issuance of the new G.O and the TDR Bonds @ 1:4 were issued in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 09.07.2018. 6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, it is not in dispute that the petitioners’ property are situated in the same area which was 8 taken over by the 3rd respondent for public purposes without initiating any acquisition proceedings. 7. In view of the submissions that the land of the petitioners was taken over and the petitioners were forced to accept TDR Bonds @ 1:2, the respondents cannot brush aside the claims of the petitioners, when similarly situated landowners were issued additional TDR Bonds @ 1:2 apart from the initial TDR Bonds issued in the 1:2 ratio. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the TDR Bonds issued to one Avirneni Lakshmi Lokeswara Rao, who was initially issued TDR Bonds @ 1:2 in the month of April, 2016 and subsequently issued additional TDR Bonds @ 1:2 ratio in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 09.07.2018. The act of the respondent authorities in denying TDR Bonds to the petitioners @ 1:4 discriminating them from similarly placed affected parties and cannot sustained a scrutiny in the fact or in and law. 9. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the TDR Bonds @ 1:4 were issued only in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.223 from the year 2018 also does not seem to be correct factual possession, more so well some of the affected landowners who were initially issued TDR Bonds @ 1:2 and subsequently issued additional TDR Bonds @ 1:2. This Court finds that the actions of the respondents are discriminately and arbitrarily. 9 10. On these grounds, there shall be a direction to the respondent authorities to issue additional TDR Bonds @ 1:2 to the affected petitioners, on par with other similarly situated affected landowners. At any rate, the direction of this Court shall be complied with within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned proceedings shall stand set aside. 11. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed off. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt: 14.10.2025 SR