1 APHC010658362022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 39363/2022 Between: 1. CONVENTION OF BAPTIST CHURCHES OF NORTHERN CIRCARS,, REG. NO.16/48-49, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY K. CHANDRA KUMAR, OFFICE AT PLOT NO.19, BHARATHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. K. CHANDRA KUMAR,, S/O. KAMESWARA RAO, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC. SOCIAL SERVICE, SECRETARY OF CONVENTION OF BAPTIST CHURCHES OF NORTHERN CIRCARS, R/O. D.NO.6-1, BHAGYA NAGAR, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA - 520 007, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2 4. M/S H R R CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. JENET MALINI THYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.40-3-3, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR D.V. MANOR, VENKATESWARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. M/S RAMASHIL CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. JENET MALINI THYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.40-3-3, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR D.V. MANOR, VENKATESWARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. M/S SHIMANI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. JENET MALINI THYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.40-3-3, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR D.V. MANOR, VENKATESWARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 7. FINE SHINE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. JENET MALINI THYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.40-3-3, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR D.V. MANOR, VENKATESWARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 8. M/S ANIRAGH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. JENET MALINI THYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.40-3-3, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR D.V. MANOR, VENKATESWARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 9. M/S H R S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. JENET MALINI THYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.40-3-3, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR D.V. MANOR, VENKATESWARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 10. M/S JAISHIL CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. JENET MALINI THYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.40-3-3, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR D.V. MANOR, VENKATESWARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 3 11. M/S H N P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. JENET MALINI THYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.40-3-3, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR D.V. MANOR, VENKATESWARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 12. M/S H B J CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. JENET MALINI THYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.40-3-3, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR D.V. MANOR, VENKATESWARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 13. M/S SOWDAMINI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. JENET MALINI THYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.40-3-3, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR D.V. MANOR, VENKATESWARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 14. M/S SEEMA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. SEEMA REDDY THYAGARAJ, W/O. THYAGARAJ CHRISTOPHER KARUNAKAR, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.59A-7- 3/2, 2ND LANE, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE ROAD, RTC COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 15. M/S JENET PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. JENET MALINI THYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.40-3-3, KRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR D.V. MANOR, VENKATESWARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 16. M/S JYOSTNA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, S/O. HEMAN JESUDAS THYAGARAJ, AGED 82 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.40-3-3, KRISHNA NAGAR, CHANDRAMOULI PURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 17. M/S TYAGARAJ CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, S/O. HEMAN JESUDAS THYAGARAJ, AGED 82 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.40-3-3, KRISHNA NAGAR, CHANDRAMOULI PURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4 18. M/S CHRISTINA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, S/O. HEMAN JESUDAS THYAGARAJ, AGED 82 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.40-3-3, KRISHNA NAGAR, CHANDRAMOULI PURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 19. M/S CHINTAKUNTA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT SEEMA REDDY THYAGARAJ, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. SEEMA REDDY THYAGARAJ, W/O. THYAGARAJ CHRISTOPHER KARUNAKAR, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.59A-7- 3/2, 2ND LANE, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE ROAD, RTC COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 20. M/S DINAKAR CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR DINAKAR THYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.7-237, PLOT NO.39, KCP COLONY, KANURU, PENAMALURU MANDAL, NEAR SIDHARATHA ENGINEERING COLLEGE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 21. M/S SUNITHA ESTATES PVT LTD, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER KARUNAKAR THYAGARAJ, THYAGARAJ HEMAN RATNKAR, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.59A-7-3/2, 2ND LANE, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE ROAD, RTC COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 22. MR DINAKAR THYAGARAJ, W/O. HEMAN RATNAKAR THYAGARAJU, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.7-237, PLOT NO.39, KCP COLONY, KANURU, PENAMALURU MANDAL, NEAR SIDHARATHA ENGINEERING COLLEGE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus' declaring the impugned 'Award of Transferable Development Right' vide TDR.No.1086/00061/TDR/WTW/2022 dated 29-10-2022, issued by the 3rd respondent herein, in favour of the respondent No.22, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and a 'fraud' against the 1st petitioner interest and title and possession, violative of Articles 14, 21 5 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, consequently set aside the same, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 suspend the impugned 'Award of Transferable Development Right' vide TDR.No.1086/00061/TDR/WTW/2022 dated 29-10-2022, issued by the 3rd respondent herein, in favour of the respondent No.22 pending final disposal of the main writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR GVMC) 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. V V RAVI PRASAD 4. PILLIX LAW FIRM 5. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV 6 7 The Court made the following: ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Mandamus is filed to declare the award of Transferable Development Right (TDR) dated 29.10.2022 issued by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.22 as illegal and without jurisdiction and that they are issued by way of playing fraud against the 1st petitioner. 2. Heard Sri T.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General for official respondents 1 to 3 and Sri V.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents 4 to 22. 3. The 3rd respondent-Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as „GVMC‟) acquired a private land for the public purpose of widening the road in Visakhapatnam city. As the 3rd respondent-GVMC found respondents 4 to 21 as owners of the said land that was acquired for the aforesaid public purpose, a registered gift deed was obtained from them represented by their GPA holder, who is respondent No.22 of all the said registered companies. The registered gift deed is dated 27.07.2021. Subsequently, a rectification deed dated 11.10.2022 was also executed which was also registered. After acquiring the said land for the aforesaid public purpose under the aforesaid registered gift deed, TDR dated 29.10.2022 was issued in favour of the owners of the said land, who are the unofficial respondents herein, represented by their GPA holder. 4. Questioning the legal validity of the said TDR that was issued by the 3rd respondent-GVMC in favour of the unofficial respondents, the instant writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioners. 8 5. The writ petitioner is a Convention of Baptist Churches of Northern Circars, represented by its Secretary by name K.Chandra Kumar (hereinafter referred to as „CBCNC‟). According to the writ petitioner, the land that was acquired by the 3rd respondent-GVMC is owned by CBCNC and it is the original and absolute owner of the said property. As CBCNC is represented by a trust association bearing Registration No.12 of 1960, the same is being represented by the board members. The 2nd writ petitioner K.Chandra Kumar claims to be the Secretary of the said association. Therefore, it is the case of the writ petitioners that as CBCNC is the absolute owner of the property that was acquired, the unofficial respondents herein are not entitled to any compensation or the TDR and it is the CBCNC, which is entitled for the TDR. 6. The 3rd respondent-GVMC and also the unofficial respondents have filed their counters opposing the writ petition. According to the case pleaded by the 3rd respondent-GVMC, the unofficial respondents, who are 18 in number, are the absolute owners of the land that was acquired by the GVMC and as such, the TDR was issued in their favour. As per the case pleaded by the unofficial respondents, it is stated that they have purchased the said land along with the remaining part of the land from the erstwhile representatives of the CBCNC under various registered sale deeds, which are 18 in number in the year 1993 and they have taken possession of the property and exercising their right of ownership of the said property and as on the date of acquiring the said property by the 3rd respondent-GVMC, they are the absolute owners of the said property and as such, they alone are entitled for TDR. It is denied that the second writ petitioner is the office bearer of the trust association of the 1st petitioner CBCNC. 7. The fact that CBCNC is the original owner of the property in question, is not in dispute. But the erstwhile representatives and office bearers of the said CBCNC, which is represented by the trust association registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, sold away the said property 9 to the unofficial respondents herein under various registered sale deeds long back in the year 1993. Subsequently, as it is found that the CBCNC is holding a surplus land, proceedings are initiated and in the said proceedings, the possession of the unofficial respondents was regularized by the Government. Therefore, after the unofficial respondents purchased the said property under registered sale deeds from the erstwhile representatives of the CBCNC, as on date of acquiring the land in the year 2021, the unofficial respondents claim to be the owners of the property. 8. The 2nd writ petitioner K.Chandra Kumar is claiming to be the Secretary of the association. His status as the Secretary of the said trust association is very much in dispute in this writ petition as the unofficial respondents categorically denied that he is the Secretary of the trust association. In fact, the material on record discloses that various people are claiming to be the representatives of the said trust association of the CBCNC. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.631 of 2021 relating to a batch of writ petitions as per order dated 01.04.2025, having found that various persons are claiming to be the representatives of the said trust association of the CBCNC, has disposed of the writ appeal with the following directions:- “1. The Registrar of Public Societies shall receive all lists submitted by the parties to these litigations. 2. These lists are to be submitted to the Registrar within two weeks from today. 3. At the expiry of the period of two weeks, the Registrar shall collate all the lists and verify whether there is any overlap in the periods claimed for each Governing Body. 4. The Registrar shall also verify whether more than one list has been filed in relation to any period. 5. In the event of any such overlap or dispute relating to the identity of the members of Governing Body for any period, the Registrar shall not decide the said dispute and shall leave it open to the parties to approach the appropriate forum for resolution of these disputes. 10 6. In the event of the Registrar being able to reconcile the lists, without going into any disputes, the same shall be taken on record. 7. If the Registrar is unable to reconcile these lists and he is required to leave it open to the parties to approach the appropriate forum, the Registrar shall keep all the lists submitted to him in the record. However, no copy of such lists will be released nor shall it be taken to as a certification of election of any of the members mentioned in that list. Though an interim direction for protecting the property of the Society had been issued by this Court, it would not be possible for this Court to extend the same as any such extension would amount to an open ended extension effectively barring the Society from alienating its property for all times to come.” 9. As can be seen from the direction No.5, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed the parties to submit their lists before the Registrar of the Societies within two weeks from the date of the order to verify whether more than one list has been filed in relation to any period and then further held that in the event of any such overlap or dispute relating to the identity of the members of Governing Body for any period, the Registrar shall not decide the said dispute and shall leave it open to the parties to approach the appropriate forum for resolution of the said disputes. 10. Therefore, it is evident that there are rival claims made by various persons claiming to be the representatives of the said trust association of CBCNC. As the dispute pertains to internal dispute among the members of the Society, the same has to be decided under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. At this stage, it cannot be decided as to who is the lawful representative of the said trust association in this writ petition. Further, the ownership rights of the property also cannot be decided by a Writ Court. The fraud alleged by the writ petitioners cannot also be decided in this writ petition. It is well settled that in order to establish the fraud alleged, there must be a specific plea relating to the details of the fraud played and proof of the same to decide whether there is any fraud in obtaining TDR 11 or not. The same also cannot be decided in this writ petition as it is the disputed question of fact which requires evidence to adjudicate the same. Therefore, if at all, the writ petitioner claims to be the lawful representative of the trust association of CBCNC during the relevant period and if at all, the CBCNC challenges the legal validity of the registered sale deeds executed by its erstwhile representatives in favour of the unofficial respondents, they have to challenge the same before the competent civil Courts and then claim for TDR. They cannot question the same in this writ petition. 11. Therefore, we do not find any valid legal ground emanating from the record to entertain this writ petition as per the relief claimed by the petitioners in this writ petition. 12. So, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed. 13. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 13.03.2026 ARR 12 150 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 39363/2022 Date: 13.03.2026 ARR