APHC010718392025 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: 36795/2025 Between: 1. CHIMAKURTHY JANARDHAN, S/O. LATE SAMBA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 37-1-278, TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.-522237 2. THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.-523001 ...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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in marking the property bearing Door No. 37-1-278 (Old T.S. No. 420), of Ground, First, and Second floors. Trunk Road, Ongole, for Petitioner's consisting demolition/road widening without following the procedure contemplated Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as illegal. under the Acquisition arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice and Consequently 2 Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners peacefuldirect the possession and enjoyment of the subject property or demolish the same until the land is lawfully acquired by paying compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, considering the Petitioners rejection of TDR Bonds vide reply dated 23-12-2025 and 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 to direct the Respondents and their agents, servants, or any person claiming through them, from interfering with the Petitioners possession or taking any coercive steps, including demolition of the property situated at Door No. 37- 1-278 (Old T.S. No. 420), consisting of Ground, First, and Second floors. Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK ASIF Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the unilateral action of the 2nd respondent authority in holding out threats of demolition and dispossession of the petitioner’s property. 2. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent, in order to widen the road, intends to dispossess the petitioner vide notice dated 29.11.2025, calling upon the petitioner to execute a registered gift deed and also express consent for accepting the TDR bonds at 1:4 ratio for the land surrendered by the petitioner. The petitioner is also called upon to submit copies of the registered sale deed, link documents, Aadhar Card photocopy, PAN Card photocopy, and other documents to the 2nd respondent for determining eligibility for grant of compensation/TDR bonds. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, under the guise of the said notice, the 2nd respondent intends to issue TDR bonds, which are not acceptable to the petitioner. 4. Sri A.S.C. Bose, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, on instructions submits that the petitioner was initially offered TDR bonds on par with other landowners whose property is also affected in the road widening process. Now that the petitioner has expressed unwillingness to accept TDR bonds, in lieu of their extents of land affected in the road widening. The respondent-authorities shall follow due process of law as laid down under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 4 Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if they intend to dispossess from the petitioner’s property. 5. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of, making it clear to the respondent authorities to follow the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in the event the respondents require the petitioner’s property for public purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 02.01.2026 PNS