APHC010702052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 36175/2025 Between: 1. PASUPULETI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. 37-1-383/37/D, NGO HOME BACKSIDE, BALAJI NAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...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 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 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 petitioner's property i.e undivided share of land of 3.55 sq. yards out of 96 sq. yards of land along with RCC Shop of 86 Sq. ft in Dr. No. 37-1-254, assessment No. 1035030379 in T.S.No. 366, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District b) pressurising the petitioner 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 2 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 his 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 to direct the 2nd respondent and its staff not to interfere with possession enjoyment of petitioner over his property i.e undivided share of land of 3.55 sq. yards out of 96 sq. yards of land along with RCC Shop of 86 Sq. ft in Dr. No. 37-1-254, assessment No.1035030379 in T.S.No. 366, 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 action of the 2nd respondent in marking the petitioner’s property, i.e., an undivided share of land admeasuring 3.55 square yards out of 96 square yards of land in T.S. No.366, along with an RCC shop admeasuring 86 sq. feet, wherein the petitioner is running a shop bearing Door No.37-1-254, Assessment No.1035030379. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being pressurized by the 2nd respondent and its officers to accept TDR certificates in return for handing over an undivided share of land admeasuring 3.55 square yards out of 96 square yards property for the purpose of road widening. It is submitted that the respondent authorities cannot force the petitioner to accept TDR bonds while acquiring the property belonging to the petitioner for public purposes. It is also submitted that the TDR bonds would not meet the requirements of the petitioner as an alternative to compensation for the land acquired. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 2nd respondent 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 petitioner’s land for public purposes. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner is issued a notice under Sections 145 and 146 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and objections of the 4 petitioner are called for, indicating that the petitioner would be issued TDR bonds @1:4 which can be utilized by the petitioner 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 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 2nd 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. 9. The insistence of the 2nd respondent in indicating the TDR bonds as an alternative for the land affected and required for public purpose would amount 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 5 essentially followed by the respondent authorities. It is always open to the petitioner 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 of directing the respondent authorities not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner 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. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 29.12.2025 PNS