Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Forced : Landowners Entitled to Cash Compensation
In a swift ruling on , the allowed three writ petitions, directing authorities to drop attempts to impose bonds on reluctant landowners. Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad emphasized that TDRs are voluntary, not compulsory, forcing the state to pursue formal acquisition under the ( ) for road widening in Ongole.
Road Widening Dreams Clash with Property Realities
The disputes arose when the targeted properties for Trunk Road expansion. Petitioners—Kollipalli Susmith Kumar (WP 5188/2026), Grandhi Eswaramma (WP 5333/2026), and Nalluri Padmavathi (WP 5338/2026)—received a demolition notice ( Roc.No.3535/2025/G1 dated ). Despite their explicit rejection of via replies like , officials pushed TDRs to sidestep cash payouts. The petitioners approached the court, arguing this violated constitutional safeguards and prior orders in WP No.21175 of 2025.
Petitioners' Stand: No Bonds, Only Fair Pay
Represented by , the petitioners contended that coercing TDR acceptance bypassed statutory acquisition processes. They invoked Articles 14 (equality), 21 (life and liberty), and 300A (property deprivation only by law), claiming the move was arbitrary. Rejecting TDRs, they demanded market-value compensation under the 2013 Act, halting any demolition until lawful proceedings.
State's Defense: TDR as Efficient Alternative?
The state, via , and , through counsel , likely justified TDRs for efficient infrastructure without fiscal strain—though the judgment notes no detailed counter-arguments, focusing on .
Decoding the Law: Agreement First, Acquisition Next
Justice Prasad dissected . Section 145 empowers property acquisition; 146 allows voluntary agreements (like TDRs); but 147 mandates RFCTLARR proceedings if no deal. No precedents were directly cited beyond this framework, but the court affirmed " " that TDRs cannot be imposed. As a news summary noted, this aligns with the 2013 Act's emphasis on transparency and fair compensation over alternative incentives.
Key Observations from the Bench
The judgment pulls no punches with these pivotal lines:
"It is athat the Respondent Authorities cannot thruston the claimants/affected parties.are only optional against seeking of compensation under."
"are not mandatory but they can be voluntarily accepted by the claimants/affected parties."
"In cases where the claimants or the affected parties who decline to accept, the only option that is available to the Government Authorities is to initiate the Proceedings under."
"The provisions of law... are clear to the effect that the affected parties are entitled for compensation under."
Victory at Admission: Due Process Enforced
At the admission stage, the court allowed the petitions without costs, ordering:
"directing the Official Respondents to follow the
namely to invoke the provisions of
for acquiring the property by determining the market price."
No interference with possession until compensation flows.
This sets a precedent for Andhra Pradesh: infrastructure can't bulldoze rights. Landowners refusing TDRs now hold stronger ground, compelling municipalities to budget for market rates—potentially slowing projects but upholding fairness in public purpose acquisitions.
