The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of landowners to compensation or alternative land under the Land Acquisition Act, and the discriminatory conduct of the acquiring authority in denying such entitlement.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

“….to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring petitioners land to an extent of Ac.1-13 cents situated in Sy.No.63/8 and 63/15 of Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and laying public road, without acquiring the said land, by promising the petitioners to give equivalent alternative land admeasuring Ac.1-13 cents situated in Sy.No.15/3 and 16 (Town Center Layout, Plot No.4) of Kurmannapalem village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and failing to honour the said commitment and putting the said property to public auction, without paying any compensation or allotting equivalent alternative land in the vicinity or issuing Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) in lieu of the aforesaid land of the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to allot equivalent alternative land in the vicinity or issue Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) in lieu of the aforesaid land of the petitioners or in the alternative to pay compensation in terms of the present law, along with interest and penalty from the date of taking possession i.e., from the year 1998 and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. This Court has heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners as instructed by Sri M.Karthik Pavan Kumar. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Surya Kiran Kumar, learned standing counsel for VMRDA/VUDA, for the main answering respondent (Respondent No.3).

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the acquisition of land measuring Ac.1-13 cents situated in Sy.No.63/8 and 63/15 of Kurmanapalem village and the failure of the respondents to compensate them for the same. They are questioning the action of the respondent, in particular respondent No.3 in laying a public road over the land without payment for the acquisition of the same. They also alleged that the 3rd respondent has reneged on their promise to pay compensation or in the alternative to issue Transferable Development Rights or equivalent land in the vicinity. Hence, the Writ is filed for the above mentioned reliefs.

4. The main contesting respondent-VMRDA has taken a stand that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this Writ Petition since, according to the VMRDA, this land of Ac.1-13 cents along with other lands purchased by the petitioners was always a road. It is classified as a road poramboke and continues to remain so. It is stated that clandestinely based on some tampering the classification has been changed to ‘ryotwari’ in the records. It is, therefore, submitted that since the subject land is a road and has vested with the Government, the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

5. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, on the other hand, took this court to entire history of the case starting with the acquisition of land by the Government in 1948 for the purpose of establishing a timber factory, the subsequent sale of the property by the liquidator of the State Timber Works in 1958 and the passing of title to the writ petitioners’ predecessors. The subsequent conduct of the 3rd respondent in acquiring the bulk of the land through a consent Award and by virtue of mutual agreements and the subsequent failure of the 3rd respondent to pay compensation or allot alternative land or even TDRs are also highlighted. Learned senior counsel drew the attention of this court to the sequence of events starting from 1950 till the filing of the Writ Petition. He also drew the attention of the court to the conduct of the 3rd respondent in discriminating against the writ petitioners by showing that TDRs were given to other similarly placed persons, while ignoring t