APHC010417762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY, THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 22550 OF 2026 Between: 1. N.V. GANESH KUMAR, S/O N.S.R. PANTHULU, AGED 66 YEARS, R/O 12-25-46, SRI SADHAN, KOTHAPET MAIN ROAD, GUNTUR - 522001 2. N.V. GURU DATH, S/O N.S.R. PANTHULU, AGED 64 YEARS, R/O 12-25-46, SRI SADHAN, KOTHAPET MAIN ROAD, GUNTUR - 522001 3. N. SATYA SAI, S/O N.S.R. PANTHULU, AGED 56 YEARS, R/O 12-25- 46, SRI SADHAN, KOTHAPET MAIN ROAD, GUNTUR - 522001 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR - 522238 2. THE GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR - 522003 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR - 522004 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR DIVISION, GUNTUR - 522004 5. THE TOWN SURVEYOR, GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GUNTUR - 522004 2 6. THE CITY PLANNER, GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GUNTUR - 522004. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VANKAYALAPATI N PRAVEEN SC For GNT,ONG,NLR Municipal Corporations 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following order: Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri V.Naga Praveen, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent No.2, 5 & 6. 2. The instant writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief: “……to issue Writ direction order or orders WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondent corporation in not sending the correct report regarding lands in T.S.No.481 Guntur Municipal Corporation Guntur West Mandal Guntur District especially the land of petitioners to the extent 170 sq yards 142 Sq.Mts taking into consideration the memorandum of compromise filed in W.P.No.15552 of 1998 to facilitate the R3 and R4 to take corrective action regarding the lands notified for road widening as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents particularly respondent No 2 to address a reply to letter addressed by the R3 by making it clear that the petitioners are owners of the land of extent 170 Sq yards 142 Sq.Mts in part of T.S.No.481 Guntur 3 West Mandal, Guntur District consequentially direct R3 and R4 to act upon such clarification…” 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of an extent of 1,361 square yards in T.S. No. 451 and 200 square yards in T.S. No. 481, situated at Guntur West Mandal, Guntur District. In the said property, the petitioners’ grandfather, after obtaining the requisite permission for construction, constructed a shopping complex. The petitioners contend that, out of the aforesaid extent, an area admeasuring 200 square yards in T.S. No. 481 was assigned in favour of their grandfather. In the year 1997, the petitioners’ grandfather passed away and, subsequently, their father also passed away. After his demise, the petitioners, who are four brothers, partitioned the property amongst themselves. 4. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 allegedly attempted to encroach upon the subject property. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, by filing a writ petition in the year 1998. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation entered into a compromise. Pursuant to the said compromise, Petitioner No.1 agreed to forego a portion of the assigned land in T.S.No.481, admeasuring 30 square yards, for the purpose of providing a free left, subject to the condition that the remaining portion of the open space would continue to remain in the possession of the petitioner and his family and would be utilized for parking purposes. 4 5. The petitioners contend that, on the basis of the said memorandum of compromise, the writ petition was disposed of by the erstwhile High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, by recording the terms of the compromise. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 did not disturb the possession of the petitioners over the remaining portion of the property. According to the petitioners, after relinquishing/donating 30 square yards out of the total extent of 200 square yards in T.S. No. 481 for the purpose of providing a free left, the remaining extent of 170 square yards continues to remain in their possession and is being utilized for parking purposes. 6. In the year 2024, a proposal was made for an ROB at the existing ROB in the locality. Subsequently, a preliminary notification dated 27.04.2026 was issued under the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. In the said notification, the names of the petitioners’ grandfather and the petitioners were notified in respect of an extent of 4.98 square yards and 18.78 square yards in Survey Nos. 451-B1 and 451-B2, respectively, proposed to be acquired. However, T.S.No.481 was not included in the said preliminary notification, notwithstanding the petitioners’ claim over and possession of the remaining extent of 170 square yards therein. 7. Thereafter, a notice dated 18.05.2026 was issued to the petitioners in connection with the proposed acquisition. The petitioners appeared before the concerned authorities and requested that a survey be conducted in respect of the subject property. They specifically contended that, without acquiring the 5 land comprised in T.S. No. 481, the lands in T.S.No.451 proposed to be acquired could not be effectively utilized for the proposed project. 8. Pursuant to the said request, the authorities issued a notice for conducting the survey. During the course of the survey, the petitioners brought to the notice of the respondents the compromise entered into between the parties in the earlier round of litigation. The petitioners specifically requested the authorities to conduct the survey in accordance with and keeping in view the terms and conditions of the said compromise, which was entered into on 14-09-1998 and was duly recorded by this Court in the earlier writ proceedings. 9. However, the said request of the petitioners was not considered by the respondents. Without taking into consideration the petitioners’ claim in respect of T.S. No. 481, and without including the said survey number in the acquisition proceedings, the respondents proceeded further with the acquisition proceedings in respect of T.S. No. 451 under Section 11(1) of the Act. 10. The petitioners contend that the action of the respondents in proceeding with the acquisition of the land in T.S.No.451 while excluding T.S. No. 481, and in disregarding the terms of the compromise recorded in the earlier round of litigation, is contrary to law. According to the petitioners, the respondents ought to have considered the effect of the earlier compromise and conducted the survey in accordance therewith before proceeding with the acquisition 6 proceedings. The petitioners therefore challenge the action of the respondents in proceeding with the acquisition without considering their claim in respect of T.S.No.481 and without taking into account the rights and possession claimed by them pursuant to the earlier compromise. 11. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit disputing the claim of the petitioners. It is contended that, for the purpose of establishing the precise boundaries and extent of the subject property, surveys of the structures bearing Nos. 56 and 57 were conducted on two different occasions. The first survey was conducted in the year 2024, prior to the initiation of the alignment evaluation process. A subsequent survey was conducted in the year 2026 by the specialized Survey Department attached to the Land Acquisition Officer. According to the respondents, both structural surveys were technically conducted with strict reference to the baseline Town Survey records. The verification carried out on both occasions confirmed that the physical boundaries and extent of the private property belonging to the petitioners correspond with their registered title documents. However, it is specifically contended that the title documents relied upon by the petitioners do not include or confer any proprietary rights over the disputed extent of 170 Sq.yds in T.S.No.481. 12. The respondents further contended that, under the terms of the compromise entered into in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners had accepted and conceded that the open site situated between the existing 7 permanent building line and the municipal masonry drain constituted Government land/public road margin. According to the respondents, in consideration of the petitioners acknowledging the State’s paramount title over the said land, the Guntur Municipal Corporation agreed not to initiate penal proceedings or issue demolition notices in respect of the violations relating to the setbacks in the petitioners’ building complex. 13. It is further contended that the Corporation has duly honoured and complied with the terms of the said compromise from the year 1998 till date. Having availed themselves of the legal protection and benefit of preservation of their building pursuant to the compromise for nearly three decades, the petitioners, according to the respondents, cannot now claim ownership over the said land or seek compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 14. The respondents further contend that the State Government subsequently revised the Master Plan road width from 100 feet to 120 feet, vide G.O.Ms.No.688 dated 30.12.2006, to facilitate the proposed alignment of the four-lane Shankar Vilas Railway Over bridge (ROB) and its service road. It is therefore contended that the disputed extent continues to form part of the public road land/road margin, over which the petitioners have no proprietary rights or locus to claim compensation. 15. It is further stated that, pursuant to the preliminary notification issued in Form 6-A dated 25.04.2026, the Government proposed to acquire the lands 8 belonging to the petitioners in T.S.Nos.451-B1 and 451-B2, admeasuring 4.98 square yards and 18.76 square yards, respectively. The respondents concede that, insofar as the said notified extents are concerned, the petitioners would be entitled to receive compensation in accordance with law. 16. However, in so far as the 170 square yards in T.S.No.481 is concerned, the respondents categorically contend that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation, as the said extent is situated between the existing building line and the municipal masonry drain and forms part of the Government/public road margin. According to the respondents, the petitioners’ claim of ownership over the said 170 square yards is therefore untenable. 17. The respondents accordingly contend that the petitioners have no enforceable claim in respect of the disputed 170 square yards in T.S. No. 481 and accordingly pray that the writ petition be dismissed. 18. Considered the submissions. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents in encroaching into open space upto Masonary Municipal Drain (claimed to be) belonging to the petitioners in the premises bearing D.No.6-4-68 to 6-5-50 in T.S.No.481. In the said regard, the petitioners and respondent-Corporation have entered into compromise. The said Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of the memorandum of compromise. The relevant portion of the compromise clauses for better appreciation are reproduced here under: 9 “1. The petitioner claims the open space was to have been assigned by the Government long back duly following the procedure: In fact, the Petitioner’s family was in possession of the same and have been paying the Municipal taxes since then as assessed. As the Respondent Corporation explained the plans for development of the city and the need for free left, the Petitioner is satisfied with the good intention of the Corporation and agrees to forego h is claim on the part of the open space as shown in the plan, for the purpose of free left on the condition that the remaining part of the open space shall continue in the possession of the petitioner’s family for parking purpose only as shown in the plan, without any let or hindrance. 2. The respondent corporation will not insist on set-back violations if any, in the building and willing to regularize the deviations as per the rules in force. 3. The Respondent Corporation also agrees not to take any further action on the building belonging to the Petitioner in the overall interest of the City. 4. A sketch plan signed by the both parties relating to the compromise is filled herewith. 5. Both parties agree for disposal of W.P.15532/98, before this Hon’ble Court in terms of the above compromise. 6. Both parties agree to bear their own costs.” 19. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that as the respondents have not denied the claim of the petitioners’ possession for a long time and in the light of the compromise memo, while conducting the survey for the purpose of determining the rights of the parties for compensation, the respondents shall take the same into consideration. 20. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to conduct a survey in 10 respect of the land to an extent of 170 Sq. Yards (142.142 Sq.mts) belonging to the petitioners in terms of the memorandum of compromise dated 14-09- 1998 and the order passed in W.P.No.15552 of 1998 dated 21.04.1999. The respondent-Corporation shall after conducting the survey send the survey report to the 3rd respondent to enable him to conduct Award enquiry under Section 19(1) of the Act, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 21. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 17.09.2026 BSK 11 28 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 22550 OF 2026 Dated: 17.09.2026 BSK