Allowed

Akkipalli Munikrishnaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jul 2022WP/20711/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners, owners of land in Tirupati, challenged the Municipal Corporation's offer to take over their land for road development by providing only TDR bonds. The court held that when owners reject TDR bonds, the authority must follow the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent not to take over the petitioners' land for road development unless acquired in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 and compensation is paid.

Akkipalli Munikrishnaiah, Vs The State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20711 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners, who are said to be the owners of 2878.12 Sq. yards in Sy.No.2/A2, Sy.No.2/A3 & Sy.No.1/2, in Kaikalcheruvu, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District have approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition, with a complaint that the officials of the 2^nd respondent-Corporation are seeking to lay a road through their land and are offering TDR bonds in lieu of compensation for the land taken over from them and the same is not acceptable to the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the 2^nd respondent is insisting that the petitioners should accept the TDR bonds as compensation even after the petitioners had categorically rejected this offer and that the 2^nd respondent is taking steps to forcibly lay the road without following due procedure under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 [for the short “The Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013”].

¶5

Sri. B. Venkatesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Right to Property is protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and any take over of the property of the petitioners would have to be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013. He further submits that the 2^nd respondent cannot seek to pay compensation by issuance of TDR certificates as the option of accepting such compensation

¶6

¶7

would rest with the petitioners and it cannot be forcibly pushed on the petitioners.

¶8

Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent has produced written instructions given by the Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Tirupati. In these instructions, it is stated that the officials of the 2^nd respondent-Corporation, while developing an existing road from Renigunta road to Padmavathipuram at Tiruchanur road had made markings in the property of the petitioners for the purpose of developing the existing road and that objections from the owners of the site would be called for, by way of a press notification after the survey for alignment of the road has been completed. The instructions further state that the petitioners would be granted TDRs as per the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017 and subsequent amendments in the event of the lands of the petitioners being taken over by the Corporation.

¶9

In view of the written instructions, it is clear that the 2^nd respondent-Corporation is seeking to take over the land and would be paying compensation only in the form of TDR bonds to the petitioners, if the land of the petitioners is required for the road development. Such a course of action would be impermissible, unless the petitioners themselves voluntarily accept the said TDR bonds. The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 or the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017 do not empower the 2^nd

¶10

¶11

respondent to acquire the land of the petitioners, by giving compensation, by way of TDR bonds. The provisions under which the said land can be acquired would be under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 unless the petitioners are willing to accept compensation under the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules 2017. In the present case, the petitioners have expressed their disinclination in accepting such TDR bonds and consequently, the 2^nd respondent can only seek to take over the land of the petitioners by following the procedure set out under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013.

¶12

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the 2^nd respondent not to take over the land of the petitioners or use the land of the petitioners for development of the road mentioned above unless and until the land of the petitioners is acquired by the 2^nd respondent in accordance with law and possession of the said land can be taken over only after payment of compensation to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶14

shall stand closed.

¶15

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶16

21.07.2022 RKS

¶17

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶19