Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 1101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
HARINATH N., J.
Kanchi Ramu, S/o. Kanchi Venkata Subbaiah – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration And Urban Development Dept. and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21760 of 2024
Decided On : 07-11-2025
For the Petitioner: P. Hemachandra.
For the Respondents: Potham Vengala Reddy SC for M. Corporation in Rayalaseema region In, GP For Muncipal Admn Urban Dev., Ponnada Sree Vyas, GP Muncipal Admn And Urban Dev AP.
Administrative actions affecting TDR rights must be supported by a resolved title dispute determined by a competent Civil Court before enforcement.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Municipal Administration Act - TDR Certificate - The petitioner challenged the abeyance order of the TDR Certificate for land gifted for road widening, which had been issued based on a claim from an unconnected third party - The Court emphasized the need for a competent Civil Court to resolve title disputes before affecting TDR rights. (Paras 1, 7, 21)
(B) Title Dispute - The legitimacy of ownership and title must be determined by civil courts, and authorities cannot adjudicate on disputes without a court order supporting claims made by third parties. (Paras 20, 25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner gifted land for road widening, received a TDR Certificate, and subsequently faced an abeyance order due to a dispute raised by the fourth respondent, who asserted title over the property without presenting legitimate grounds.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the abeyance order unjustified, confirming that the petitioner operated under a valid TDR Certificate based on pre-existing titles.
Issues: The key issue addressed was whether the respondent could rightly keep TDR Certificates in abeyance based on a third-party complaint without judicial adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reaffirmed that third-party claims must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court before administrative actions can affect statutory rights granted under TDR provisions.
Result: Writ petition allowed; the abeyance order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's tdr certificate and land rights future clarification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. 4th respondent's claims and interruptions to petitioner's property rights. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. dispute over land title and tdr bonds relationship. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's consideration of the justified issuance of proceedings. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. impugned proceedings and the impact of title disputes. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. writ petition allowed, concluding the judicial review. (Para 28) |
ORDER :
HARINATH N., J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Lr.Roc.No.19024(31)/81/2022-ATR RGN- DOTCP, dated 13.09.2024, by which the respondent had kept in abeyance both utilised and unutilized TDR dated 19.08.2023 issued to the petitioner and also a direction is sought to set aside the said order.
2. Sri. O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, along with his family members, had executed a registered gift deed dated 17.07.2023 in favour of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner’s family transferred rights over land admeasuring 2603.14 square meters/3113.32 square yards to facilitate the 3rd respondent's use of the same for road widening.
3. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent awarded Transferrable Development Right (TDR) in the name of the petitioner vide certificate No.1012/00356/TDR/GN/2023, dated 19.08.2023, for 10412.559 square meters of built-up area. It is also submitted that the petitioner has sold away 7386.48 square meters of built-up area, thereby utilising more than 75% of the TDR Certificate granted.
4. The learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to a grant of TDR Certificate as the father of the petitioner had purchased the property vide a registered sale deed dated 29.10.1979 vide document No.423/1980. It is submitted that the Civil Court had decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 11.03.2015 in OS.No.1 of 2005 by the V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. It is submitted that the title of the petitioner is undisputed and that a competent Civil Court has also decreed the suit based on the title deeds of the petitioner’s father.
5. It is submitted that the revenue authorities were persuaded to mutate the petitioner’s father's name in the revenue records during the lifetime of the petitioner’s father. It is also submitted that, after the demise of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner followed up with the revenue authorities regarding the mutation. It is also submitted that during the field inspection, the brother of the 4th respondent and his family came out to the site and objected to the conduct of the survey. It is submitted that the brother of the 4th respondent had relied on a fabricated document for claiming the property, and that the petitioner filed a case in Cr.No.421 of 2012 against him for fabricating the documents. It is submitted that the Tahsildar, Tirupati, had issued proceedings Roc.No.A/299/2019, dated 14.03.2022 and effected the mutation in the name of the petitioner and his family members. The Tahsildar, in his order dated 14.03.2022, also directed the sub-division of land, and the petitioner’s land was assigned survey No.1/1B.
6. It is submitted that the brother of the 4th respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Tirupathi, against the order of the Tahsildar. The RDO vide his order dated 15.10.2022 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Tirupathi, against the order of the RDO, Tirupathi. The Joint Collector not only modified the order of the RDO but also cancelled the sub-division of land and further directed the Tahsildar to earmark the boundaries of the land as per the sale deeds vide order dated 08.12.2023. It is submitted that the said order is contrary to the judgment and decree passed
