APHC010680142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 35007/2025 Between: 1. GOLI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O SRIMANNARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 8-398 A, GOLIVARI STREET, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT . ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT . ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 2 WRIT PETITION NO: 35009/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK ABDUL RAHMATULLA, S/O ABDUL JALEEL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 6-183, 2ND LANE ISLAMPET, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3 WRIT PETITION NO: 35010/2025 Between: 1. MUNAGALA VENKATA SIVA NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 9-319, MUNAGALAVARI STREET, OLD MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 4 WRIT PETITION NO: 35011/2025 Between: 1. PANIDAPU VEERASWAMY, S/O SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 8-155, KARIVEPAKUVARI VEEDHI, TENALI ROAD, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 5 WRIT PETITION NO: 35012/2025 Between: 1. VENIGALLA POTHURAJU, S/O SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 8-116, TENALI ROAD, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 6 WRIT PETITION NO: 35013/2025 Between: 1. GOLI DURGA RAO, S/O GOLI HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 8-422, GOLIVARI STREET, TENALI ROAD, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 7 WRIT PETITION NO: 35014/2025 Between: 1. JALLEDA NARASIMHA RAO, , S/ O BIKSHALU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 7-112, VYDEHI KALYANA MANDAPAM, TENALI ROAD, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 8 WRIT PETITION NO: 35015/2025 Between: 1. VENEGALLA SETHU MADHAV,, S/O MANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 8-116B, SHARAF BAZAR, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 9 WRIT PETITION NO: 35017/2025 Between: 1. TALLURI RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O SIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 9-124, RAJAKA STREET, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 10 WRIT PETITION NO: 35018/2025 Between: 1. BITRA MARKANDEYULU, S/O NARASIMHA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 10-26, BOSE BOMMA CENTRE, OLD MANGALAGIRI, T.B.SANITORIUM, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. BITRA BHAVANARAYANA,, S/O NARASIMHA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 10-26, BOSE BOMMA CENTRE, OLD MANGALAGIRI, T.B.SANITORIUM, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 11 WRIT PETITION NO: 35019/2025 Between: 1. MANYAM YEDUKONDALU, S / O KOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 4-118, ATMAKUR, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 12 WRIT PETITION NO: 35020/2025 Between: 1. BORRA PRASAD, , S/O SANKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 8-681, MIDDE CENTRE, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 13 WRIT PETITION NO: 35021/2025 Between: 1. JONNADULA VENKATA NARAYANAMMA,, W/O GURU MOHANA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO. 5-261, WEAVERS COLONY, 1ST STREET, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522238 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522503 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 14 WRIT PETITION NO: 35029/2025 Between: 1. MOGAL JILANI BAIG,, S/O MASTHAN BAIG, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.7-152, MIDDE CENTRE, T.B.SANITORIUM, TENALI. ROAD, MANGALAGIRI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238 2. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 15 COMMON ORDER:- In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are either residing in the properties abutting the road or conducting business in the properties abutting the road. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions, aggrieved by the proposed action of the 2nd respondent in taking up the road widening from the existing 40 to 60 feet from Tenali road of Mangalagiri town. It is submitted that the petitioners are apprehending pressure from the 2nd respondent in yielding to the demand of the 2nd respondent in offering TDR bonds as the only solution for acquiring the petitioners’ property. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are all small traders and apart from the property over which they are residing they have no other property or other livelihood. It is submitted that the petitioners are now exposed to the demands of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent without issuing any notice has resorted to marking the petitioners’ property for the purpose of road widening. In that regard, whenever the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent, they were orally informed to accept the TDR bonds offered by the 2nd respondent in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 28.03.2017. It is submitted that the petitioners are not willing to accept the TDR bonds, as the same is not commensurative alternative to The Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is also submitted that the petitioners would not be adequately compensated in the event the respondent authorities do not follow the Act 30 of 2013. 16 3. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter along with Council Resolution and the newspaper clippings relating to the proposed road widening. It is submitted in the counter that the 2nd respondent is in the process of implementing the zonal development plan and also keeping in view the changed circumstances in the Tadepalli Municipality, the requirement of widening the road from 40 feet to 60 feet was considered essential about 20 years ago. However, the same could not materialize on account of various reasons. It is also submitted that the services of RITES were engaged for conducting comprehensive mobility plan for Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation for the 2nd respondent area and a proposal to widen the road from existing 2 lanes to 4 lanes were also submitted. 4. It is submitted that the Zonal Development Plan would have to match the phase of development and traffic as such the respondents have to essentially widen the existing road. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent shall follow the applicable provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act i.e., Sections 146 and 147 of the A.P. Municipal Act, 1955 and A.P. Building Rules, 2017, for arriving at compensation for the land acquired for road widening. It is also stated in the counter that meetings were conducted with the property owners, whose properties were affected in road widening and some of the property owners had given consent by accepting T.D.R. certificates. It is submitted that the writ petitions are filed with an apprehension, without issuance of any notice and that no cause of action has arisen for the petitioners to file the present writ petitions. 17 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 6. Perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is in the process of widening of the road from the existing 40 feet to 60 feet, as per the Zonal Development Plan notified vide G.O.Ms.No.687, MA, dated 30.12.2006. It is also evident that the petitioners’ properties are likely to be affected in the road widening process. As stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent that some of the property owners have expressed their consent for accepting the T.D.R bonds and that the 2nd respondent would also negotiate with the petitioners for offering T.D.R bonds in lieu of their properties. 8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have never expressed their consent for accepting T.D.R bonds and have personally visited the office of the 2nd respondent and requested the Commissioner to consider their cases for grant of compensation under The Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The claims of the petitioners were not considered and they were called upon to attend the proposed meeting for negotiation. The procedure contemplated Section 146 of the Municipal Corporation Act, deals with the acquisition of immovable property by agreement. Section 147 prescribes the procedure, when immovable property cannot be acquired by agreement. 18 9. The petitioners, if they are not accepting for the T.D.R bonds offered by the 2nd respondent, the only option left for the 2nd respondent will be to invoke the procedure contemplated under Section 147 of the Municipal Corporation Act and the property of the petitioners would have to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The only option for the respondents would be to follow the procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 10. Considering the same, the writ petitions are disposed off, making it clear to the 2nd respondent that, if any of the petitioners submit in writing their dissent for accepting the T.D.R. bonds offered, the respondents shall have to essentially follow the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 11. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed off. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.31.12.2025 SR