APHC010295452026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 903 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-26 [3584] The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation ...Appellant Vs. Datia Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Raju and others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 15th September, 2026. Present : Advocate for Appellant: Mr. A. S. C. Bose (SC for Municipal Corporations AP) Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP for Municipal Admn. Urban Dev., Mr. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy LISA GILL, CJ. Prayer in this appeal is for setting aside order dated 30.08.2025, passed by learned Single Bench, whereby Writ Petition No.10914 of 2025, filed by present respondent Nos.1 to 12, was allowed. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 12/ writ petitioners had filed W.P.No.10914 of 2025 being aggrieved of action of official respondents in not affording them the benefit of double Transferrable Development Rights (T.D.R.) in terms of HCJ & CGRJ WA_903_2026 memo dated 20.07.2016. It was the case of writ petitioners that they are absolute owners in possession of land as is detailed in writ petition; their sites were affected during process of widening of existing road (Asilametta Junction to Maddillapalem and Railway Station to Dwarakanagar) under B.R.T.S. Scheme; T.D.R. certificates in ratio of 1:1 had been issued to writ petitioners as per G.O.Ms.No.678 dated 07.09.2007. 3. While the matter stood thus, memo dated 20.07.2016, was issued, stating that Government had examined proposal and decided to allow double T.D.R. at 1:2 ratio to all owners of properties procured for B.R.T.S. corridor within limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07.04.2012 also as a special case. In view of said communication dated 20.07.2016, petitioners executed gift deeds in the year 2019. 4. Writ petitioners claim that they were entitled for benefit which had in fact been conferred on similarly situated persons in terms of memo dated 20.07.2016. Representation in this regard was submitted, however, vide communication dated 30.09.2021, their claim was rejected. 5 It was pleaded that writ petitioners were orally assured that double T.D.R. would be issued at the time of execution of gift deeds, but their claim was rejected vide endorsement dated 30.09.2021. Appellant addressed communication dated 25.03.2022, to Special Chief Secretary, Municipal HCJ & CGRJ WA_903_2026 Administration and Urban Development Department, requesting issuance of necessary orders on applicant’s request regarding issuance of 1:1 additional T.D.R. certificates in addition to earlier 1:1 T.D.R. issued, while noting that G.V.M.C. had issued second T.D.R. at 1:1 ratio to 14 other affected owners of the vicinity. Aggrieved of rejection of their claim, writ petition was filed. 6. Learned Single Judge on considering facts and circumstances allowed writ petition and directed authorities to issue T.D.R. bonds to petitioners, after verification of their claims regarding execution of gift deeds within a period of 8 weeks from receipt of copy of order. Aggrieved therefrom, present appeal has been filed by G.V.M.C. 7. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argues that impugned order has been incorrectly passed without appraisal of facts and circumstances in correct perspective. Road under B.R.T.S. scheme was laid in year 2009-10 and T.D.R. @ 1:1 ratio was also released earlier. Endorsement dated 30.09.2021 had become final with their representation for issuance of double T.D.R. having been rejected on 27.11.2024. It is thus prayed that this appeal be allowed and impugned order dated 30.08.2025 be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for private respondents/ writ petitioners has opposed writ appeal, while supporting impugned order dated 30.08.2025. Dismissal of appeal is sought. HCJ & CGRJ WA_903_2026 9. We heard learned counsel for parties and have carefully perused the file with their able assistance. 10. It is a matter of record and not denied that land of petitioners was affected during the formation of B.R.T.S. corridor. It is further a matter of record that Government by examining the question of award of double T.D.R. to owners of properties procured for formation of B.R.T.S. corridor prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07.04.2012, took a conscious decision to allow this benefit of T.D.R. in ratio of 1:2, as a special case, to all affected persons. This is so reflected in memo dated 20.07.2016. It is further not denied that this benefit was afforded to fourteen other individuals similarly as the writ petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for appellant was unable to point out any distinction in case of present writ petitioners with reference to fourteen other persons to whom benefit has been afforded. It is further to be noted that gift deeds were indeed executed in 2019, subsequent to decision taken by Government to allow T.D.R. in ratio of 1:2. 12. Learned counsel for appellant is unable to point out any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in impugned order dated 30.08.2025, which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 13. No other argument is raised. HCJ & CGRJ WA_903_2026 14. In the given facts and circumstances, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly. LISA GILL, CJ. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. SSN Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes Whether the order is Reportable : Yes / No