APHC010721312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 36799/2025 Between: 1. ALAPATI RAGHAVA RAO, S/O.RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 28-1-112-1, SOUTH STREET GANDHI 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 Petitioners property bearing Door No. 37-1-52, TS No. 96, located in the 26th Ward, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District for demolition/road widening without following the procedure contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the 2 VS, J W.P.36799 of 2025 principles of natural justice and Consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners peaceful 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 29- 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- 1-52, TS No. 96, located in the 26th Ward, 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. SHAIK ASIF Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 VS, J W.P.36799 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…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 Petitioners property bearing Door No. 37-1-52, TS No. 96, located in the 26th Ward, Trunk Road, Ongole, Prakasam District for demolition/road widening without following the procedure contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300- A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice and Consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner’s peaceful 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 Petitioner’s rejection of TDR Bonds vide reply dated 29-12- 2025….” 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of a tiled house bearing Door.No.37-1-52 and a vacant site situated in T.S.No.96 (Old A.S.No.7420), Ward No.26, Ongole Town, Municipal Area, Trunk Road, Ongole, having acquired the same through a registered Settlement Deed dated 25.07.1974 vide document No.42 of 1974 executed by his adoptive mother. While the things stood thus, the 2nd respondent, intending to widen the road, issued a 4 VS, J W.P.36799 of 2025 notice vide Roc.No.3535/2025/G1 dated 29.11.2025 under Sections 146, 146A, 146B, 146C, 147 and 635 of the APMC Act, 1955, calling upon the petitioner to execute a registered gift deed and also to express his consent for accepting the TDR bonds at a ratio of 1:4 for the land proposed to be surrendered by the petitioner. For which, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 29.12.2025 categorically refusing to execute a gift deed in favour of the respondents and requesting them to follow the due process of law. On the contrary, the staff of the 2nd respondent visited the petitioner’s property and initiated steps to dispossess the petitioner by making markings on the building. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 3. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Administration and Urban Development. 4. The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioner was initially offered TDR bonds on par with other land owners whose properties were affected in the road-widening process and that the petitioner has now expressed his unwillingness to accept TDR bonds in view of the extent of land affected in the road widening. 5. As per the said instructions, it can be observed that the petitioner cannot be forced to accept the TDR bonds instead of paying compensation under Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 5 VS, J W.P.36799 of 2025 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to follow due process of law as laid down under the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if they intend to dispossess the petitioner from his property. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall also stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 05.01.2026 KGR