APHC010711472025 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: 36429/2025 Between: 1. CHINNI KISHOR KUMAR, S/O SRI RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. 23-1-42, GANDHI ROAD. NEAR INDIRA GANDHI STATUE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. CHINNI SUPRAJA,, W/O CHINNI KISHOR KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. 23-1-42, GANDHI ROAD, NEAR INDIRA GANDHI STATUE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI 522238, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, OPP. CHURCH CENTRE, ONGOLE 523001. ...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 2 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 property jointly owned by the petitioners i.e 38.5 sq. yards of undivided share of land out of 96 sq. yards of land along with 864 sq. ft each RCC structured 2nd and 3rd floors in Datta Sai Complex with Dr. No. 37-1-251, Assessment No. 1035030474, T.S.No. 366, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District b) pressurising the petitioners to accept TDR certificates by 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 petitioners 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 Petitioners over their property without following the procedure contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and pass such other order or orders this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper 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 direct the 2nd respondent and its staff not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of petitioners over their jointly owned property i.e 38.5 sq. yards of undivided share of land out of 96 sq. yards of land along with 864 sq. ft each RCC structured 2nd and 3rd floors in Datta Sai Complex” with Dr. No. 37-1-251, Assessment No. 1035030474, T.S.No. 366, District in Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam any manner including trespass, dispossession, demolition or blocking the ingress/ egress from properties and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: The petitioners are aggrieved by the unilateral action of the 2nd respondent authority in holding out threats of demolition and dispossession of the petitioners from their property. 2. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent in order to widen the road, intends to dispossess the petitioners vide notice dated 29.11.2025, calling upon the petitioners 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 petitioners. The petitioners were 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 petitioners submits that under the guise of the said notice, the 2nd respondent intends to issue TDR bonds, which are not acceptable to the petitioners. 4. Sri A.S.C. Bose, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent on instructions submits that the petitioners were initially offered TDR bonds on par with the other land owners whose property is also affected in the road widening process. Now, that the petitioners expressed their unwillingness to accept TDR bonds, in view of their extent of land affected in the road widening. However, the respondent-authorities shall follow due 5 process of law 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 petitioners from their 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 6 211 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Writ Petition No.36429 of 2025 Date: 30.12.2025 SCH