APHC010492152025 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: 25282/2025 Between: 1. NOORBASHA DASTHAGIRI, S/O MUSALA SAHEB, AGED 59 YEARS, TAILOR, R/O FLAT NO. 303, VIJAYA EDEN PARK, VIP ROAD, 0PP. ARUNA HOSPITAL, LAWYERPET, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PIN-523001, A.P. 2. NOORBASHA JAMEELABI,, W/O DASTAGIRI, AGED 57 YEARS. HOME MAKER, R/O FLAT NO. 303, VIJAYA EDEN PARK, VIP ROAD, 0PP. ARUNA HOSPITAL, LAWYERPET, ONGOLE TOWN, 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, JAKARAIAH NAGAR, DEVUDI CHERUVU, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GOVERNOR ROAD, JAKARAIAH NAGAR, DEVUDI CHERUVU, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 hand over the petitioners property in an extent of 166.77 Sq. feet of tailoring shop in tiled house out of a total extent of 52 sq. yards in Town Sy. No. 185 with Door No. 37-1-328 (1), situated in 6TH ward, 3RD block. Assessment No. 1035002330, and the action of respondents 2 and 3 in marking the petitioners building including site in an extent of 26 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 12-09-2025, 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 take over, 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 tailoring shop in tiled house 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 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 166.77 Sq. feet of tailoring shop in tiled house out of a total extent of 52 sq. yards in Town Sy. No. 185 with Door No. 37-1-328 (1), situated in 6TH ward, 3 RD block. Assessment No. 1035002330 and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to demolish the petitioners’ tailoring shop in tiled house including site in an extent of 26 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 & to consider the petitioners objections dated 12-09-2025, 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 tailoring shop in tiled house, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 4 ORDER:- The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in marking the petitioners’ property to an extent of 166.77 square feet of tailoring shop in tiled house out of a total extent of 52 square yards in T.S.No.185, along with a RCC Building, wherein the petitioners are running a shop bearing Door No.37-1-328(1), situated in 6th ward, 3rd block, Assessment No.1035002330. 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 5 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 6 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