APHC010685072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 35396/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK VAHEDA, AGED ABOUT 58YEARS W/O ABDUL SAMAD, 2. AMANULLA,, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. ARIFULLA,, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 4. PERULLA,, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 5. MALLIKA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 6. MAHARA,, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. ALL ARE S/O AND D/O OF ABDUL SAMAD, R/O 7-150, MAIN ROAD, MANGALAGIRI TOWN, GUNTUR DT, A.P 522503. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE MANGALAGIRI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THE MANGALAGIRI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2 ...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 (a) Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly the 3rd Respondent, in threatening to demolish the structures in Petitioner's land in Sy.No 252-B bearing an extent of 75 Sq Yards in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, for the purpose of road widening without following the due process of law under the Act of 2013, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 300Aofthe Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same (b) directing the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and not to demolish the same without adhering to the procedure established by law (c) 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 pleased grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants, or any person claiming through them from taking any coercive steps, including demolishing or damaging the Petitioners property in Sy.No 252-B bearing an extent of 75 Sq Yards in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KARUMANCHI INDRANEEL BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3 APHC010685222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 35394/2025 Between: 1. SYED MAHABOOB SUBHANI, S/O AHMAD,, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,R/O7-152-A , TENALI ROAD, REVENUE WARD.7.4TH LANE,LSLAMPET, MANGALAGIRI-522503, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE MANGALAGIRI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P ...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 (a) Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly the 3rd Respondent, in threatening to demolish the Petitioners property bearing D.No 7-152A situated in an extent of 200 Sq. Yards in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, for the purpose of road widening without following the due process of law under the Act of 2013, as being illegal, 4 arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same (b) directing the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and not to demolish the same without adhering to the procedure established by law (c) 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 pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants, or any person claiming through them from taking any coercive steps, including demolishing or damaging the Petitioner's property bearing D.No 7-152A, situated in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARUMANCHI INDRANEEL BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 5 APHC010685112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 35397/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK SHAMSHAD BEGUM, W/O ABDUL SHUKOOR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,R/O7-79A, TENALI ROAD, REVENUE WARD.7. MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE MANGALAGIRI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P ...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 (a(a) Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly the 3rd Respondent, in threatening to demolish the Petitioner's property bearing D.No 7-79a situated in an extent of 211.61 Sq. Yards in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, for the purpose of road widening without following the due process of law under the Act of 2013, as being illegal, 6 arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same (b) directing the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and not to demolish the same without adhering to the procedure established by law 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 pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents servants, or any person claiming through them from taking any coercive steps, including demolishing or damaging the Petitioner's property bearing D.No: 7-79a, situated in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARUMANCHI INDRANEEL BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 7 APHC010685192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 35492/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK KAMRUDDIN, ,S/O MAHAMMAD HUSSEN.AGED ABOUT 60,R/O 7-113,TENALI ROAD,ISLAM PET.MANGALAGIRI - 522503, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522204 3. THE MANGALAGIRI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P - 522503 ...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 (a) Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly the 3rd Respondent, in threatening to demolish the Petitioners house bearing D.No 7-113, situated in an extent of 80 Sq. Yards in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, for the purpose of road widening without 8 following the due process of law under the Act of 2013, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same (b) directing the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and not to demolish the same without adhering to the procedure established by law (c) 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 pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants, or any person claiming through them from taking any coercive steps, including demolishing or damaging the Petitioner's property bearing D.No: 7-113, situated in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARUMANCHI INDRANEEL BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 9 APHC010685242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 35530/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK MUSTAFA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2. SHAIK RAFI,, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. SHAIK SULAIMAN,, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ALL ARE S/O OF SHAIK SUBHANI, R/O 7-563-A3, TIPPARLA BAZAR, MANGALAGIRI TOWN, GUNTUR DT, A.P 522503. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE MANGALAGIRI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P ...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 (a) Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly the 3rd Respondent, in threatening to demolish the 10 structures in Petitioners land in Sy.No 252-B bearing an extent of 75 Sq Yards in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, for the purpose of road widening without following the due process of law under the Act of 2013, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same (b) directing the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and not to demolish the same without adhering to the procedure established by law (c) 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 pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants, or any person claiming through them from taking any coercive steps, including demolishing or damaging the Petitioners property in Sy.No 252-B bearing an extent of 75 Sq Yards in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KARUMANCHI INDRANEEL BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 11 APHC010685042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 35548/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK BAJI, S/O SHAIK JHONNY,AGECL ABOUT 60,R/O 7- 533,TIPPARLA BAZAR,MANGALAGIRI - 522503, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE MANGALAGIRI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. ...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 (a) Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly the 3rd Respondent, in threatening to demolish the Petitioner's house bearing D.No 7-111, situated in an extent of 259 Sq. Yards in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, for the purpose of road widening without following the due process of law under the Act of 2013, as being illegal, 12 arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same (b) directing the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and not to demolish the same without adhering to the procedure established by law (c) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to 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 pleased pleased grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants, or any person claiming through them from taking any coercive steps, including demolishing or damaging the Petitioner's property bearing D.No: 7-111, situated in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARUMANCHI INDRANEEL BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 13 APHC010699802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 36148/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O JANI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ,R/O7-83, TENALI ROAD, ISLAMPET,MANGALAGIRI-522503, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522204 3. THE MANGALAGIRI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P - 522203 ...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 (a) Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly the 3rd Respondent, in threatening to demolish the Petitioner's building bearing D.No. 7-83b, situated in an extent of 174 Sq. Yards in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, for the purpose of road widening without 14 following the due process of law under the Act of 2013, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same (b) directing the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and not to demolish the same without adhering to the procedure established by law (c) 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 pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants, or any person claiming through them from taking any coercive steps, including demolishing or damaging the Petitioner's property bearing D.No: 7- 83b, situated in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, in the interest of justice. pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARUMANCHI INDRANEEL BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 15 APHC010699792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 36150/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK ABDUL JALEEL,, S/O SILAR SAHEB AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,R/O8- 682,LSLAMPET,MANGALAGIRI-522503, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522204 3. THE MANGALAGIRI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P - 522203 ...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 (a) Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly the 3rd Respondent, in threatening to demolish the Petitioner' property bearing D.No. 8-682, situated in an extent of 232 Sq. Yards in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, for the purpose of road widening without 16 following the due process of law under the Act of 2013, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same b) directing the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and not to demolish the same without adhering to the procedure established by law (c) 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 pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants, or any person claiming through them from taking any coercive steps, including demolishing or damaging the Petitioner's property bearing D.No: D.No: 8-682, situated in Mangalagiri, Guntur District, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARUMANCHI INDRANEEL BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 17 COMMON ORDER:- 1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are either residing in the properties abutting the road or conducting business in the properties abutting the road. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions, aggrieved by the proposed action of the 3rd respondent in taking up road widening from the existing 40 to 60 feet on Tenali road of Mangalagiri town. It is submitted that the petitioners apprehend pressure from the 3rd respondent to yield to the demand of the 3rd respondent to accept TDR bonds as the only solution for acquiring the petitioners’ property. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are all small traders and, apart from the properties over which they are residing, they have no other property or means of livelihood. It is submitted that the petitioners are now exposed to the demands of the 3rd respondent and that the 3rd respondent, without issuing any notice, has resorted to marking the petitioners’ properties for the purpose of road widening. In that regard, whenever the petitioners approached the 3rd respondent, they were orally informed to accept the TDR bonds offered by the 3rd respondent in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 28.03.2017. It is submitted that the petitioners are not willing to accept the TDR bonds, as the same is not commensurate alternative to the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is also submitted that the petitioners would not be adequately compensated in the event the respondent authorities do not follow the Act 30 of 2013. 18 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter along with the Council Resolution and newspaper clippings relating to the proposed road widening. It is submitted in the counter that the 3rd respondent is in the process of implementing the zonal development plans and that, keeping in view the changed circumstances in the Tadepalli Municipality, the requirement of widening the road from 40 feet to 60 feet was considered essential about 20 years ago. However, the same could not materialize on account of various reasons. It is also submitted that the services of RITES were engaged for conducting a Comprehensive Mobility Plan for the Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation area and that a proposal to widen the road from existing two lanes to four lanes were also submitted. 4. It is submitted that the Zonal Development Plan has to match the phase of development and traffic and, as such, the respondents have to essentially widen the existing road. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent shall follow the applicable provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, i.e., Sections 146 and 147 of the A.P. Municipal Act, 1955 and A.P. Building Rules, 2017, for arriving at compensation for the land acquired for road widening. It is also stated in the counter that meetings were conducted with the property owners, whose properties were affected by the road widening and that some of the property owners gave their consent by accepting TDR certificates. It is submitted that the writ petitions have been filed on mere apprehension, without issuance of any notice, and that no cause of action has arisen for the petitioners to file the present writ petitions. 19 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 6. Perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent is in the process of widening the road from the existing 40 feet to 60 feet, as per the Zonal Development Plan notified vide G.O.Ms.No.687, MA, dated 30.12.2006. It is also evident that the petitioners’ properties are likely to be affected in the road widening process. As stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, some of the property owners have expressed their consent to accept the TDR bonds and that the 3rd respondent would also negotiate with the petitioners for offering TDR bonds in lien of their properties. 8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have never expressed their consent for accepting TDR bonds and that they have personally visited the office of the 3rd respondent and requested the Commissioner to consider their cases for grant of compensation under the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The claims of the petitioners were not considered and that they were instead called upon to attend a proposed meeting for negotiation. The procedure contemplated Section 146 of the Municipal Corporation Act, deals with the acquisition of immovable property by agreement. Section 147 prescribes the procedure, when immovable property cannot be acquired by agreement. 20 9. The petitioners, if they are not accepting for the TDR bonds offered by the 3rd respondent, the only option left for the 3rd respondent would be to invoke the procedure contemplated under Section 147 of Municipal Corporation Act and the properties of the petitioners would have to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The only option for the respondents would be to follow the procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 10. Considering the same, the writ petitions are disposed off, making it clear to the 3rd respondent that, if any of the petitioners submit in writing their dissent to accepting the TDR bonds offered, the respondents shall necessarily follow the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 11. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.02.01.2026 NKA 21 187 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOS: 35396, 35394, 35397, 35492, 35530, 35548, 36148 and 36150 of 2025 Date: 02.01.2026 NKA