APHC010708622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 36420/2025 Between: 1. BIYYAPU SUMA, W/O VENKATA RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. 23-1-258, GANDHI ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, 2. THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, OPP. CHURCH CENTRE, ONGOLE. ...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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in a) giving markings to petitioners property i.e around 100 Sq. yards of land along with RCC G plus 1 structure with D. No. 37-1-123, Assessment No. 1035002588, in T.S.No. 487, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District b) pressurising the petitioner to accept TDR certificates by 2 handing over the said property including land and structure to the 2nd respondent for proposed road widening of the road from J.M.B Church Center to Old Market (Trunk Road) to a width of 80 feet in Phase-1 and c) initiating steps to dispossess petitioner from the land of said property by demolishing the structure without following the procedure under The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 not to interfere with the possession and ownership of Petitioner over her property without following the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, 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 be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent and its staff not to interfere with possession enjoyment of petitioner over her property i.e around 100 Sq. yards of land along with RCC G+1 structure with D. No. 37-1-123, Assessment No. 1035002588, in T.S.No. 487, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District in any manner including trespass, dispossession, demolition or blocking the ingress/ egress from properties and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the unilateral action of the 2nd respondent authority in holding out threats of demolition and dispossession of the petitioner from her property. 2. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent in order to widen the road, intends to dispossess the petitioner vide notice dated 29.11.2025, calling upon the petitioner to execute a registered gift deed and also express consent for accepting the TDR bonds at 1:4 ratio for the land surrendered by the petitioner. The petitioner was also called upon to submit the copies of the registered sale deed, link documents, Aadhar Card photo copy, PAN Card photo copy and other documents to the 2nd respondent for determining the eligibility for grant of compensation/ TDR bonds. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the guise of the said notice, the 2nd respondent intends to issue TDR bonds, which are not acceptable to the petitioner. 4. Sri A.S.C. Bose, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent on instructions submits that the petitioner was initially offered TDR bonds on par with the other land owners whose property is also affected in the road widening process. Now, that the petitioner expressed her unwillingness to accept TDR bonds, in view of her extent of land affected in the road widening. However, the respondent-authorities shall follow due process of law 4 as laid down under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if they intend to dispossess the petitioner from her property. 5. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N SCH 5 206 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Writ Petition No.36420 of 2025 Date: 30.12.2025 SCH