i. N APHC010478672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) QMS THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 25116 OF 2Q2fi I u Xrs fh Between: 1. Nallamalli Ranganadh Guptha, S/o Sreeramulu, aged 53 years Business, R/o Door No.33-1-55-2, TVP street. Trunk Road, Town, Prakasam District, Pin-523001, A.P 2. Nallamalli Anupama, W/o Ranganadh Guptha, aged 46 years, R/o Door No.33-1-55-2, TVP street. Trunk Road, Ongole Town District, Pin-523001, A.P. Ongole Prakasam ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P 2. The Ongole Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Governor Road, Jakraiah Nagar, Devudi Cheruvu, Ongole Town District, A.P. Prakasam 3. The Town Planning officer, Ongole Municipal Corporation, Governor Road, Jakraiah Nagar^ District, A.P. Devudi Cheruvu, Ongole Town, Prakasam ...Respondents 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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the notice in ROC. No. 3535/ 2025/G1, dated 15-07-2025 issued as per GO No. 119 MA, dt.28-03-2017 by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners, threatening to handover the petitioners property in an extent of 156 Sq. feet of RCC building out of a total extent of 335 sq. feet or 37.22 sq. yards in Town Sy. No. 157 with Door No. 37-1-39 (2), 37-1-39 situated in 6th ward 2nd block, and the action of respondents 2 and 3 in marking the petitioners building including site in an extent of 26 14 feet for demolition for proposed 100 Road widening in Trunk Road from Church Centre up to Keerti Medical Shop in Ongole Town Municipal Corporation of Prakasam District, without considering petitioners objections dated 06-09-2025, without following procedure established by law, as illegal arbitrary without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Town Planning Act, 1920 read with Sec. 145 and 146 of A.P.H.M.C Act, 1955 and in violation of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to set aside the said notice and consequently to direct the respondents not to takeover, demolish and not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the Writ schedule property and not to dispossess the petitioners from their RCC building. lA 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 to suspend the notice in ROC. No. 3535/ 2025/G1, dated 15-07-2025 issued as per GO No.119 MA, dt.28-03-2017 by the 2 petitioners, threatening to handover the petitioners property in an extent of 156 Sq. feet of RCC building out of a total extent of 335 sq. feet or 37.22 sq. yards in Town Sy. No. 157 with Door No. 37-1-39 (2), 37-1-39 situated in 6th ward, 2nd block and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to nd respondent against the demolish the petitioners building including site in an extent of 26 14 feet for proposed 100 Road widening in Trunk Road from Church Centre up to Keerti Medical Shop in Ongole Town Municipal Corporation of Prakasam District and to consider the petitioners objections dated 06-09-2025, not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the Writ schedule property and not to dispossess the petitioners from their RCC building, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SR! SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP Counsel for the Respondents No.2, 3: SRI A S C BOSE The Court made the following order: r APHC010478672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0!¥i0 [3457] I-* THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 25116/2025 Between: 1.NALLAMALLI RANGANADH GUPTHA, S/0 SREERAMULU, AGED 53 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/0 DOOR NO.33-1-55-2, TVP STREET. TRUNK ROAD, DISTRICT, PIN-523001, A.P ONGOLETOWN, PRAKASAM 2.NALLAMALLI ANUPAMA, W/0 RANGANADH GUPTHA. AGED 46 YEARS, R/0 DOOR NO.33-1-55-2, TVP STREET. TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLETOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PIN-523001, A.P. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P 2.THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, GOVERNOR ROAD, JAKRAIAH NAGAR, DEVUDI CHERUVU, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. 3.THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL -2- HN, J \A/.P.No.2S116 2025 CORPORATION. GOVERNOR ROAD. JAKRAIAH NAGAR. DEVUDI CHERUVU. ONGOLE TOWN. PRAKASAM DISTRICT. A.P. ...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 notice in ROC. No. 3535/ 2025/G1. dated 15-07-2025 issued as per GO No. 119 MA. dt.28-03-2017 by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners, threatening to property in an extent of 156 Sq. feet of RCC building out of a total extent of 335 sq. feet or 37.22 sq. yards in Town Sy. No. 157 with Door No. 37-1-39 (2). 37-1-39 situated in 6th ward 2nd block, and the action of respondents 2 and 3 in marking the petitioners building including site in an extent of 26 14 feet for demolition for proposed 100 Road widening in Trunk Medical Shop in Ongole Town Municipal Corporation of Prakasam District, without considering petitioners objections dated 06-09-2025. without following procedure established by law. as illegal arbitrary without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Town Planning Act. 1920 read with Sec. 145 and 146 of A.P.H.M.C Act. 1955 and in violation of principles of natural justice and Articles 14. 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to set aside the said notice and consequently to direct the respondents not to takeover, demolish and not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the Writ schedule property and not to dispossess the petitioners from their RCC building and pass lA 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 notice in ROC. No. 3535/ 2025/G1. dated 15-07-2025 issued as per GO No.119 MA. dt. 28-03- 2017 by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners, threatening to handover the petitioners property in an extent of 156 Sq. feet of RCC handover the petitioners Road from Church Centre up to Keerti -3- S ' HN, J W.P.No.25116 2025 building out of a total extent of 335 sq. feet or 37.22 sq. yards in Town Sy. No. 157 with Door No. 37- 1-39 (2), 37-1-39 situated in 6th ward, 2nd block and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to demolish the petitioners building including site in an extent of 26 14 feet for proposed 100 Road widening in Trunk Road from Church Centre up to Keerti Medical Shop in Ongole Town Municipal Corporation of Prakasam District and to consider the petitioneprs objections dated 06-09-2025, not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the Writ schedule property and not to dispossess the petitioners from their RCC building, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP -4- HN, J W.P.No.25116_2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.25116 OF 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the notice in ROC. No. 3535/ 2025/G1, dated 15-07-2025 issued as per 1. GO No. 119 MA, dt.28-03-2017 by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners, threatening to handover the petitioners property in an extent of 156 Sq. feet of RCC building out of a total extent of 335 sq. feet or 37.22 sq. yards in Town Sy.No.157 with Door No. 37-1-39 (2), 37-1-39 situated in 6th ward 2nd block, and the action of respondents 2 and 3 in marking the petitioners building including site in an extent of 26 14 feet for demolition for proposed 100 Road widening in Trunk Road from Church Centre up to Keerti Medical Shop in Cngole Town Municipal Corporation of Prakasam District, without considering petitioners objections dated 06-09-2025, without following procedure established by law, as arbitrary and illegal. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner 2. and the learned standing counsel for Cngole Municipal Corporation. I During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely 3. covered by the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by this Court in -5- HN, J W.P.No.25116 2025 W.P.No.21175 of 2025 and requested to pass a similar order in this writ petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under: “....the writ petition is disposed off directing the respondent authorities not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property 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 petitioner.” 4. in view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order. this writ petition is also disposed of, in terms of the order, dated 08.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21175 of 2025. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. Registry is directed to annex a copy of the order in W.P. No.21175 of 2025 to the order in the present writ petition. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in tl|ii|f writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Veiagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P 2. The Commissioner, Ongoie Municipal Corporation, Jakraiah Nagar, Devudi Cheruvu, Ongoie Town, 3. The Town Planning officer, Ongoie Municipal Road, Jakraiah Nagar, District, A.P. Governor Road, Prakasam District, A.P. Corporation, Governor Devudi Cheruvu, Ongoie Town, Prakasam ■■ One CC to SRI SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] Two CCS to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CD Copies Gsg (Along with Copy of Order dated 08.09.2025 in WP. No. 21175 of 2025) 4. 5. 6. i. HIGH COURT DATED:25/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 25116 OF 2025 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS 6APHC010408582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21175/2025 Between: 1.KOTA SRIMANNARAYANA, S/0. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/0 37-1-316, ANDHRA COFFEE, TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 28-1- 87, NEAR ENUGU CHETTU, ONGOLE 523001. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, 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); Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER;- The petitioner i IS aggrieved by the action of the 2 nd respondent in marking the petitioner's property admeasuring 54 T.S.No.49 along with a RCC roof structure, wherein the shop in the name and style of Andhra square yards of land in petitioner is running a Coffee and General Stores bearing Door No.37-1-316. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the and their officers to petitioner is pressurized by the 2"'" respondent certificates in return for handing accept the TDR over 54 square yards property for the purpose cannot force acquiring the property belonging to purposes. It is also submitted that the TDR of road widening. It is submitted that the respondent authorities the petitioner to accept TDR bonds while the petitioner for public would not meet the bonds requirements of the petitioner as an alternative to compensation for the land acquired. The learned counsel for the 2"^^ respondent would have to follow the 3. petitioner further submits that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation Resettlement Act, 2013, in the event the respondent authorities i acquire any portion of the petitioner’s land for public and intend to purposes. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2"'^ respondent submits that the petitioner is issued a notice under Sections 145 and 146 of the Act, 1955, and objections of the petitioner would be issued TDR Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation petitioner are called for, indicating that the 3 bonds @1:4 which can be utilized by the petitioner or could be put to sate 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 property. The 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 petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2"'^ respondent. 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. The insistence of the 2"^ respondent in indicating the TDR bonds as an alternative for the land affected and, required for public purpose would amount 9. to coercive tactics of the respondent authorities. 10. In view of Section 147 of the Act of the Municipal Corporation, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, would have to be essentially followed by the respondent authorities. It is always open to the petitioner to accept the offer of TDR landowners do not bonds. However, in cases where the accept the TDR bonds offered by the respondent would have to follow the provisions of authorities, the respondent authorities the Right to Fair Compensation Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. On these considerations, the respondent authorities not to disturb the petitioner property without following due that the respondent authorities shall have acquiring the land of the petitioner. There shall be and iransparency in Land Acquisition, 11. writ petition is disposed off directing the possession and enjoyment of the process of law, making it further clear to follow the Act 30 of 13 while no order as to costs. 12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE HARINATH.N 08.09.2025 PNS