Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 14030
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HARINATH.N, J
J ALADANKI SRINIVASA RAO – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 23712/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI
For the Respondents: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
Laws governing property acquisition must be adhered to, ensuring due process is followed without coercion.
Headnote:The petitioner challenges the marking of property by the respondents, claiming undue pressure to accept TDR bonds for road widening without proper compensation under applicable laws, specifically the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition. The court noted that respondent authorities must follow due process under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and the 2013 Act. The issue addressed was the validity of using TDR bonds as compensation which the court framed within the core principle of due process and statutory adherence. Ultimately, the court directed that possession of the petitioner’s property should not be disturbed without following legal protocols, ensuring the proper acquisition process.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to coerced acceptance of tdr bonds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. obligation of authorities to follow due process in land acquisition. (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. clarification of statutory provisions and their implications in acquisition. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's directive regarding possession and compliance with legal protocols. (Para 11) |
The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in marking the petitioner’s property admeasuring 29.3/9 square yards of land in T.S.No.268 along with a RCC G+1 structure, wherein the petitioner is running a shop bearing Door No.37-1-349, Assessment No.1035002523.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is pressurized by the 2nd respondent and their officers to accept the TDR certificates in return for handing over 29.3/9 square yards property for the purpose of road widening. It is submitted that the respondent authorities cannot force the petitioner to accept TDR bonds while acquiring the property belonging to the petitioner for public purposes. It is also submitted that the TDR bonds would not meet the requirements of the petitioner as an alternative to compensation for the land acquired.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 2nd respondent would have to follow the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 , in the event the respondent authorities intend to acquire any portion of the petitioner’s land for public purposes.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner is issued a notice under Sections 145 and 146 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 , and objections of the petitioner are called for, indicating that the petitioner would be issued TDR bonds @1:4 which can be utilized by the petitioner or could be put to sale and liquidated subsequently. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities would follow the procedure contemplated under Sections 145 and 146 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and accordingly this writ petition can be disposed of by recording the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel that the respondent authorities shall follow the provisions of Chapter V of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 relating to acquisition of property. The Sections 145 , 146 and 147 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 relate to the power and procedure for acquisition of immovable property.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
6. Section 146 deals with acquisition of immovable property by agreement. 7. Section 147 deals with procedure when immovable property cannot be acquired by agreement.
8. Section 145 empowers the Corporation to acquire any property on payment of compensation.
9. The insistence of the 2nd respondent in indicating the TDR bonds as an alternative for the land affected and required for public purpose would amount to coercive tactics of the respondent authorities.
10. In view of Section 147 of the Act of the Municipal Corporation, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 , would have to be essentially followed by the respondent authorities. It is always open to the petitioner to accept the offer of TDR bonds. However, in cases where the landowners do not accept the TDR bonds offered by the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities would have to follow the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 .
11. On these considerations, the writ petition is disposed off, directing the respondent authorities not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner property without following due process of law, making it further clear that the respondent authorities shall have to follow the Act
