Date of reserved for orders : 11.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 16.09.2026 Date of uploading : 16.09.2026 APHC010474922021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 28712/2021 Between: 1. P RAMA DEVI, W/O. NAGABUSHAN RAO, AGED 62 YRS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 504, ASWITHA APPARTMENT, D.NO. 48-11-85, CURRENCY NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATANAM. ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more so, a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in taking over the land admg. 400 Sq.yards, in RS.No.403/3B and an extent of 108 Sq.Yards in RS.No.403/3A at NTR Colony, for formation of drainage and road, without following the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and other laws, but assuring and promising to compensate for the extent of the land taken over for formation of the drainage and road and in spite of repeated demands, request and inaction of the respondents to compensate upto 20th year even after receiving the representations from the petitioner by the district Spandana i.e. Collecotrate with the rrni-Prit rash interPct and reference letter 11.05.2021,11.06.2021 and dated 04.09.2021 to the commissioner VMC as arbitrary, illegal, highhanded and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to pay compensation as per the amendment 22 of 2018, formed by A.P.Govt to 2013 land acquisition Act for the said land acquired from the petitioner for formation of the road, and may pass such 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 may be pleased to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner to the 4th respondent dated 06.04.2021, 11.05.2021, and 11.06.2021 and 04.09.2021 to the commissioner of VMC to pay compensation for their taken over for formation of road at NTR colony, during the pendency of the above writ petition, and may pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 receive the Reply copy on record by allowing he leave petition in WP.No. 28712 of 2021 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 2. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC 3. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.28712 of 2021 ORDER: 1. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent authorities in paying the compensation for the extent of land belonging to the petitioner which was taken over by the respondent No.3 for public purposes. A consequential direction to the respondent authorities to determine the compensation payable and to pay such compensation is sought for. 2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the owner of land in R.S.No.403/3B and R.S.No.403/3A, Road No.4, N.T.R.Colony. It is submitted that 400 square yards of land in R.S.No.403/3B and 108.68 square yards in R.S.No.403/3A were taken over by the respondent authorities for road formation. It is submitted that the respondent authorities promised adequate compensation by issuance of TDR bonds. It is submitted that the land was taken over during the year 2007-2008 and the petitioner was awaiting the compensation. 3. It is submitted that the respondents have neither compensated the petitioner nor have issued TDR bonds as was promised in the year 2011. In this regard, the petitioner submitted several representations. Though representations were received, no orders were passed. It is also submitted that after the declaration of Amaravati Region as the 4 capital of the State, the respondent authorities started claiming that the file relating to the petitioner is not traceable and that it was handed over to C.R.D.A authorities. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have also determined the extent of land which was taken over from the petitioner for public purposes. The Town Surveyor determined the extent of land affected for public purposes, and the City Planner called for information from the Executive Engineer – III. 4. It is submitted that all the representations of the petitioner were not considered and no orders were passed on the representations. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities have not paid the compensation nor issued the TDR bonds as was promised. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that a detailed counter has been filed; it is submitted that the petitioner could not have filed the writ petition claiming compensation or TDR bonds. It is submitted that the petitioner sold the property long back, and the developer applied for building permission to construct a residential apartment. At that time, land admeasuring 108 square yards, measuring 78.5 x 12.6, was considered as the road-affected portion. It is submitted that the said road on the eastern side is not a master plan road but was laid for the benefit and convenience of the colony people, including the petitioner. The petitioner could not have claimed compensation for the land sold to third parties, and on the date of laying 5 of the road, the petitioner was not the owner or possessor of the said property. 6. Reply to the counter is filed by the petitioner; it is specifically denied that the petitioner has not sold away the subject site and that the property is still in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. The reply reiterates that a total of 508 square yards of land was taken over for road formation and laying out drainage. 7. This Court, vide order dated 30.12.2025, directed the petitioner to submit one set of title documents along with the copy of building permission to the respondents to enable them to ascertain the extent of land affected for road widening with reference to the correspondence dated 22.11.2011 and 27.06.2012. 8. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent No.3. Perused the material on record. 9. The short point for consideration is whether the respondents can be directed to issue TDR bonds for the extent of land which was taken over from the petitioner for laying of a road and drainage for public purposes. 10. Admittedly, there is no denial from the respondents that a road and drainage were laid. Ownership of the property over which the road and drainage were laid did not vest in the Municipality or the State. The said property belongs to the petitioner. 6 11. For utilising private property for public purposes, the law is settled on the process of acquisition. The law on grant of compensation for taking over such properties is also settled. The Government has also introduced issuance of TDR bonds instead of compensation wherever the landowners accept such proposals. 12. The correspondence dated 22.11.2011 and 27.06.2012 would categorically clear that property belonging to the petitioner was taken over for public purposes. The correspondence also implies that the respondent authorities have not invoked the land acquisition proceedings. The respondents have also not taken the requisite steps to issue TDR bonds instead of compensation. 13. The respondents claim that the petitioner cannot claim for compensation after having sold the property and the subsequent purchaser developing the property into a residential complex. On the contrary, the petitioner denies sale of the property to any third party. There is no clarity as to when the respondent No. 3 took over the petitioner's property and when the petitioner sold the property to third parties. 14. This Court directed the petitioner to furnish copies of the title deeds and the respondent authorities to determine the extent of land affected for road widening as referred to the proceedings dated 22.11.2011 and 27.06.2012. 7 15. There is no doubt that the petitioner cannot claim compensation after having sold the entire extent of his property, and subsequent laying of road over the extent of land sold by the petitioner does not ipso facto entitle the petitioner to claim any compensation for that extent of land which forms part and parcel of a sale transaction. However, on the facts of this case, the petitioner is denying sale of the land in R.S.No.403/3A and R.S.No.403/3B. 16. In such circumstances, the respondent authorities could not have taken over the petitioner’s property without adequately compensating the petitioner. The petitioner would be entitled to compensation as per the prevailing rules. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of arguments submits that the petitioner is willing to accept the TDR bonds. 17. The respondent authorities shall have to issue TDR bonds for the extent of land in R.S.No.403/3A and R.S.No.403/3B which was taken over for laying of road and drainage. The petitioner shall furnish copies of the title documents for the subject property to Respondent No. 3 for processing the issuance of TDR bonds. 18. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit the title documents relating to the subject property along with an application seeking issuance of TDR bonds for the proportionate extent of land taken over for laying of road and drainage in R.S.No.403/3A and R.S.No.403/3B to the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 shall 8 forward the same to the scrutiny committee for determining the eligibility of the petitioner for issuance of TDR bonds and appropriate orders be passed on the petitioner’s application. At any rate, the entire process shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 16.09.2026 KGM 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.28712 of 2021 Date: 16.09.2026 KGM