APHC010081062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 4337/2025 Between: 1. P S M SAW MILL, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, P.SRINIVASULU, S/O. P.RAMANUJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.N0.18-3-56A4, KHADI COLONY, SHANTINAGAR, TIRUPATI URBAN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT AT TIRUPATI. 3. THE TIRUPATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema 2 region In 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not paying the compensation for the land acquired, admeasuring 323.74 square meters (387.19 square yards), which was required for public purposes, as such the petitioner executed a registered gift deed in favour of the 3rd respondent vide registered gift deed dated 25.11.2023. 2. It was categorically the grievance between the petitioner and the respondents that the petitioner shall be issued TDR bonds for the affected land. It is submitted that the land was valued at Rs.1,43,27,000/-, which was gifted by the petitioner in favour of the 3rd respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the petitioner executing the gift deed, the 3rd respondent has utilized the land gifted by the petitioner and also laid a road. The respondent authorities have now issued an endorsement dated 05.10.2024, whereby the petitioner has been informed of the decision of the Government to stop issuing TDR bonds. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, upon written instructions, submits that the petitioner has not yet applied for obtaining a TDR bonds through the Online TDR portal from citizen login, and that once the application is submitted along with the required documents, the TDR bonds will be issued by following the due procedure as per G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 28.03.2017. 4 5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted an online application on 22.03.2025 seeking a TDR bonds and has also submitted the relevant documents. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the online application can be considered subject to the same being in order in terms of the submission of the required documents. 7. Considering the submissions and also the present status of the property which was gifted by the petitioner and has been utilized by the 3rd respondent for laying a road. In these circumstances, the denial of the TDR bonds due to the petitioner would amount to a grossly irrational act on the part of the 3rd respondent. 8. On these considerations, this writ petition is disposed off with the following direction: The 3rd respondent shall consider the online application dated 22.03.2025 and issue TDR certificates as eligible in terms of G.O.Ms.No.119. In the event there are any shortfalls, the petitioner shall be notified within a period of one (01) week, and the petitioner shall comply with the same. After complying with the shortfalls, the 3rd respondent shall issue TDR bonds in terms of G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 28.03.2017, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 13.10.2025 PNS 6