Quashed

K Sobha Rani v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC2 May 2024WP/4611/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Tirupathi Municipal Corporation's threat to lay a road on private land without due process under the LARR Act 2013. The court directed the corporation not to interfere with the property except under due process of law and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents Corporation directed not to interfere with the petitioner's property except under due process of law.

K Sobha Rani Vs the State of Ap — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MAY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

¥
[< I*.

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 4611 OF 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

K Sobha Rani, W/o K Nagasubba Reddy, Aged about 54 years, R/o Flot no. 110, D.no. 8-198, New Balaji Colony, Tirupathi Town, Timpathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi District.

¶11

Koneru Madhu Sudhan Reddy, S/o K Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 49 years, R/o D.NO. 13-18, Koneruvandlapalli Village, GK Rachapalli Post, T Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District

¶12

K Govardan Reddy, S/o Nagasubba Reddy, Aged about 29 years, R/o D. No. 8-198, Flat no. 110, New Balaji Colony, Tirupathi Town, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi District.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of AP, Rep. by Municipal Administration and U.D Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District - 522 503.

¶16

The Tirupathi Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District

¶17

The Chief City Planner, Tirupathi Municipal Corporation, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District

¶18

The Revenue Divisional officer cum Land Acquisition officer, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 3 in threatening to lay the road in our private land in Survey Nos. 158/2, 276/1A and 276/IB of Tmminaidu Palem Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi District, without following due process of law under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to dispossess petitioners or lay the road in our land in 158/2, 276/1A & 276/IB of Tmminaidu Palem Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi District without following due process of law under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. K SRINIVAS

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 3 : SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

APHC010084052024

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶30

AT AMARAVATI

¶31

[3332]

¶32

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶33

FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶34

PRESENT

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO: 4611/2024

¶37

Between:

¶38

K Sobha Rani and Others

¶39

...PETITIONER(S)

¶40

AND

¶41

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶43

1.KSRINIVAS

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶45

1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶46

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶47

The Court made the following:

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

The short grievance of the petitioners herein is that^{therespondent} Nos.2 and 3 are threatening to lay the road in the petitioners land in Sy.Nos.158/2, 276/1A & 276/IB of Thimminaidu Palem Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi District, without following^{dueprocessoflaw.}

¶50

Heard Sri K.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Suresh Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration contended that the respondent Corporation in a manner unknown to law is trying to lay road in the petitioners land without following procedure contemplated under law. If such highhanded action is allowed, it affects the rights of the petitioners as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interests of the petitioners.

¶52

On the other hand, Sri K.Suresh Reddy, learned Standing^counselfor the respondent Corporation on instructions contended that, the petitioners land is an unauthorized lay out and they are having 40ft wide road and the same was shown in Thimminaidupalem 80ft road in the RDP and as per the documents submitted by the petitioners it was shown as 40ft wide road only and at Thimminaidupalem Village, 80ft master plan road was approved on 18.08.2023 and the same was published on 20.08.2023 calling for suggestions and objections from the property affected persons and no objections and suggestions were received from the affected property holders in time. It is further contended that so far as the affected site in the master plan road, the petitioners have to execute gift deed to the Municipal Corporation, Tirupathi for sanction of TDR certificate. If the petitioners execute any gift deed for the purpose of road widening as per the master plan, the authorities will consider and issue TDR certificate. As such, the petitioners cannot have any grievance, accordingly prays to pass appropriate orders.

¶53

In reply to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners^submitted that the petitioners have no intention to accept the^{TDRcertificateandthey} want to claim compensation if the authorities take^steps.

¶54

Perused the record.

¶55

The main grievance of the petitioners is that the authorities^aretryingto lay road in their land without following due process of law. Whereas the respondent authorities are contending that the Corporation^{wouldissueTDR} certificate for the land lost by the petitioners. The^petitioners opposed^thesaid contention and are contending that they want to claim^{compensationforthe} land lost by them. In this regard, Section 147 of the^{CorporationAct,1955are} relevant and the same which reads as follows;

¶56

“(1) Whenever the Commissioner is unable to acquire^any immovable property under the last preceding section^byagreement, the Government may, in their discretion, upon the application^ofthe Commissioner, made with the approval of the Standing^Committee and subject to the other provisions of this Act, order^{proceedingsto} be taken for acquiring the same on behalf of the Corporation,^{221 [in} accordance with the provisions of the 222Land Acquisition^Act,1894 as amended from time to time as if such property were^landneeded for a public purpose within the meaning of the provisions^ofthesaid Act]

¶57

1 1

¶58

(2) The amount of compensation awarded and all other^charges Incurred in the acquisition of any such property shall,^subjecttoall

¶59

other provisions of this Act, be forthwith paid by^{theCommissioner} and thereupon the said property shali vest in the Corporation. ’’

¶60

If the concerned individual is not inclined to give their land voluntarily, the concerned Department has to acquire the same by invoking the land acquisition proceedings. In the present case, the petitioners’^{contentionisthat} the petitioners have no intention to accept TDR certificate^whensuch is the case, the only option left open to the respondents Corporation is to acquire the same by virtue of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

¶61