1 HN, J W.P.No.14269_2014 APHC010250312014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 14269/2014 Between: 1. S.RAJESWARI, ANANTAPUR DIST, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.11-1-744, NAIK NAGAR, ANANTAPURAMU TOWN, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PRL SECY MUN ADMN DEPT HYD 2 OTHERS, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN COUNTRY PLANNING, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2ND FLOOR, MYTHRI VIHAR, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD. ...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 toto issue a writ or order, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in allotting alternative site for the land acquired for formation of roads to some of the persons and not allotting alternative site in LP No.3/1998 in lieu of acquiring the land of the petitioner to an extent of 13.52 cents in Sy.Nos.264/1 and 266/1 situated in Anantapuramu nor paying any compensation amount by 2 HN, J W.P.No.14269_2014 initiating Land Acquisition Proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, discrimination and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to pay the compensation by initiating Proceedings as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or allot alternative site in LP No.3/1998 of Anantapur Municipality, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 17758 OF 2014 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 1 and 2 to take action forthwith either allotting alternative site or pay the compensation to the petitioner for the land acquired to the extent of 13.52 cents in Sy.Nos.264/1 and 266/1 situated in Anantapuramu, Pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV 3. T BHEEMANNA(S C FOR MUN CORP ATP) 3 HN, J W.P.No.14269_2014 ORDER: 1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not allotting an alternative site for the land acquired for the formation of roads. 2. The petitioner's land, admeasuring an extent of 13.52 cents in Survey No. 264/1 and 266/1 at Ananthapuram, was taken over by respondent No.2 for the purpose of laying of roads. Respondent No.2, vide proceedings dated 09.04.2010, informed respondent No.1 that the petitioner's land was required to meet the exigency and, as such, a proposal for allotment of an alternate site in the De-Reserve open space in L.P.No.31/65 and L.P.No.3/98 was proposed. It is submitted that the petitioner was willing to accept the alternative plot; however, the same was not allotted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24708 of 2010. It is submitted that this Court, vide order dated 24.12.2010, directed the respondents to finalize the proposal as soon as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It is submitted that a similarly placed property owner had filed W.P.No.3419 of 2006, which was disposed off by this Court vide order dated 10.06.2010, and that the said writ petitioner was allotted an alternative plot. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed C.C.No.165 of 2013, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in allotting the alternative land, and the said contempt case was closed by recording the 4 HN, J W.P.No.14269_2014 contention of the respondents therein that the proposal was sent by the respondent Corporation to the Director of Town and Country Planning for necessary action and that the orders rejecting the proposal were passed on 10.09.2010. It is submitted that the stand taken by the respondents in the contempt case was that the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer was requested to initiate the acquisition process. It is submitted that, as on date, the petitioner has neither been allotted an alternative plot nor been compensated for the proportionate extent of land which was taken over by respondent No.2. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 submits that a detailed counter is filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 3 and that the petitioner's property was in the midst of roads and that the petitioner could not claim for compensation. The 2nd respondent also filed a counter and that it is stated in the counter that the schedule of the property belonged to the petitioner mentions an east road and that the petitioner's property was existing on a land which was used as a road. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 6. The stand of the respondents is contrary to the proceedings dated 09.04.2010, 29.5.2010, 01.06.2010, 21.07.2010 and 10.09.2010. It is evident that the respondents have taken different stands to suit their convenience. 5 HN, J W.P.No.14269_2014 Insofar as the grant of compensation for the petitioner's property, which was taken over by the respondent No.2 for laying a road is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not been paid the compensation to which she is entitled. 7. The private property belonging to the petitioner could not have been taken over by the respondent authorities without following the procedure contemplated under law by initiating acquisition proceedings. It is also evident that the respondent authority was inclined to allot an alternative site to the petitioner and correspondence with the concerned authorities was made in that regard. It is also not in dispute that a similarly placed property owner was allotted an alternative site. The action of the respondents in following different yardsticks for different property owners cannot sustain the scrutiny of law and logic. 8. On the facts of this case, the petitioner is certainly entitled for compensation for the land which was taken over by the respondents. The respondents shall determine the extent of compensation payable to the petitioner for the land taken over in the year 2004 and adequately compensate the petitioner in accordance with the existing law. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed off, making it clear to the respondent No.2 to adequately compensate the petitioner for the subject property which was taken over for the public 6 HN, J W.P.No.14269_2014 purposes without compensating the petitioner. The petitioner shall be compensated in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, or the respondents shall propose any other acceptable alternative to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 shall be comply with the order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:05.08.2026 NKA Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 7 HN, J W.P.No.14269_2014 168 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 14269 of 2014 Date: 05.08.2026 NKA