Disposed¶53

Nagothi Satyanarayana v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Jan 2025WP/1050/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TDR Transferable Development Rights certificate 1:4 ratio G.O.Ms.No.223 Municipal Administration Urban Development GVMC Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation road widening Madhurawada Visakhapatnam Sy.No.192/4 gift deed 05.11.2018 Regn.No.5652 of 2018 built up area 1029.678 Sq.mtrs Article 226 mandamus covered by earlier order W.P.No.21699 of 2021 dated 08.05.2024 disposed no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the order dated 08.05.2024 in W.P.No.21699 of 2021: respondent Corporation (GVMC) to issue balance TDRs as per G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 07.09.2018, within eight (08) weeks from receipt of copy of the order; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶53

Nagothi Satyanarayana Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to extension of benefits of G.O.Ms.No.223, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 09.07.2018, namely issuance of TDR Certificate for the remaining extent of 1029.678 Sq.mtrs of built up area, in respect of land acquired from them vide Gift Deed dated 05.11.2018 (Regn.No.5652 of 2018), and whether the 2nd respondent's failure to grant such benefits is illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

Court's answer

The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by this Court's order dated 08.05.2024 in W.P.No.21699 of 2021, and that position was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

For the reasons alike in the order dated 08.05.2024 in W.P.No.21699 of 2021, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of that order — i.e., the respondent Corporation is to issue balance TDRs as per G.O.Ms.No.223 within eight weeks; no order as to costs; the Registry is directed to attach a copy of the earlier order.

¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Art. 226) by Nagothi Satyanarayana and another seeking a writ of mandamus declaring illegal and arbitrary the 2nd respondent-Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation's failure to extend benefits of G.O.Ms.No.223, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 09.07.2018 for land of 514.839 Sq.mtrs in Sy.No.192/4 of Madhurawada Village acquired vide registered Gift Deed dated 05.11.2018 (Regn.No.5652 of 2018), and to consequently issue TDR Certificate for the remaining extent of 1029.678 Sq.mtrs of built up area. Held (V. Sujatha, J., 24.01.2025): the issue is squarely covered by this Court's order dated 08.05.2024 in W.P.No.21699 of 2021 (Ravi Cheemalapati, J.), which directed the respondent Corporation to issue balance TDRs as per G.O.Ms.No.223 within eight weeks; that position was undisputed by the respondents' counsel. Writ petition disposed of in terms of the said order, with no order as to costs; Registry directed to attach a copy of the earlier order; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO: 1050 OF 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Nagothi Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Nagothi Adinarayana,^Aged63years, R/o. D.No.25-126/1, Nagarampalem, Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam District-530048.

¶7

Nagothi Appalanarasayya, S/o. Late Nagothi Venkataswamy,^Aged63 years, R/o. D.No.25-153/2, Nagarampalem, Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam District-530048.

¶8

...PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶11

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam.

¶12

The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Zone-1, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of^{the2ndrespondentin} not extending the benefits to the petitioner as per^{G.O.Ms.No.223,Municipal} Administration and Urban Development (M) Department^{dated09.07.2018}

¶15

for the land acquired from the Petitioner vide Gift Deed dated 05.11.2018 (Regn.No.5652 of 2018) an extent of 514.839 Sq.mtrs. in Sy.No.192/4 of Madhurawada Village, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the A.P. Building Rules 2017 and Article 14 and 300-A of constitution of India and # ■ 'consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to extend the benefits of *;G.O.Ms.No.223, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 09.07.2018 by issuing the TDR Certificate for the remaining extent of 1029.678 Sq.mtrs. of built up area, in the interest of justice.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.223, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 09.07.2018 by issuing TDR Certificate for the remaining extent of 1029.678 Sq.mtrs. built up area by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation In view of the land acquired^underGift Deed^dated 05.11.2018 (Regn.No.5652 of 2018), pending disposal^{oftheWritPetitionin} the interest of justice.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G RAMA GOPAL

¶19

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

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRI A S C BOSE (SC FOR GVMC)

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

APHC010017962025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

[3333]

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY

¶29

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 1050/2025

¶33

Between:

¶34

Nagothi Satyanarayana and another

¶35

...PETITIONER(S)

¶36

AND

¶37

The State of A.P. and others

¶38

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶40

1.G RAMA GOPAL

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶42

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶43

The Court made the following:

¶44

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶47

seeking the following relief:

¶48

"... ot Issue writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not extending the benefits to the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.223, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 09.07.2018 for the land acquired^from the Petitioner vide Gift Deed dated 05.11.2018 (Regn.No.5652 of 2018) an extent of 514.839 Sq.mtrs. in Sy.No.192/4 of Madhurawada Village, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the A.P.Building Rules 2017 and Article 14 and 300-A of constitution of India and consequently direct the 2”“^ Respondent to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.223, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 09.07.2018 by issuing the TDR^{Certificatefor} the remaining extent of 1029.678 Sq.mtrs of built up^area "

¶49

I \ 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order, dated 08.05.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21699 of 2021 and requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The operative portion of the said order, reads as under:

¶50

“16. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent Corporation to issue balance TDRs as per the terms of

¶51

¶52

G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 07.09.2018, within a period of^{eight(08)weeks} from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

¶53

In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid^order,this Writ Petition is also disposed of, in terms of the^{order,dated08.05.2024} passed by this Court in W.P.No.21699 of 2021. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

of the order, dated 08.05.2024 5. Registry is directed to attach the copy passed by this Court in W.P.No.21699 of 2021 to this order. No order as to costs.

¶55

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ^{Petitionshallstand}

¶56

closed.

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR ' SECTION OFFICER

¶59

To,

¶60

1 The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶61

1. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam.

¶62

Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal

¶63

1. The Zonal Commissioner, Corporation Zone-1, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

¶64

One CC to Sri G Rama Gopal, Advocate [OPUC]

¶65

One CC to Sri A S C Bose, SC for GVMC, Advocate^[OPUC]

¶66

Two CCs to GP for Muncipal Admn and Urban Dev, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶67

Three CD Copies

¶68

(Along with a copy^{oforderdt.08.05.2024inWPNo.21699of2021)}

HIGH COURT

DATED:24/01/2025

ORDER

WP.No.1050 of 2025

1 1 FEB 2025
COi
. Current Section ^
5s£?8PATC«©^

¶75

DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS

[3332]

APHC010356042021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶80

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶81

PRESENT

¶82

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶83

WRIT PETITION NO: 21699/2021

Between:

Nagothi Appalaraju,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶89

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶90

1.A VARALAKSHMI

¶91

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶92

1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶93

2.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR GVMC)

¶94

3.P RAJASEKHAR

¶95

The Court made the following:

¶96

ORDER

¶97

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents did not issue Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificate at 1:4 ratio as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 09.07.2018, in relation to the land in an extent of 907.19 sq.yards in Survey No.201/15 (part) and 211/2 (part) located in Revallapalem, Madhurawada village, which was surrendered to the

¶98

¶99

corporation by execution of registered gift deed dated^{24.10.2018ofSRO,} Madhurawada village.

¶100

Heard Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel, representing^{learnedcounsel} for the petitioner, and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned^{StandingCounselfor} Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation.

¶101

Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel, in elaboration^{wouldsubmitthat} the petitioner's land was acquired for road widening^{andintheyear2018the} 2'’'* respondent directed the petitioner to execute^{registeredsettlementdeed} in their favour for the effected portion of the land and accordingly the petitioner executed gift deed in favour of the corporation on 24.10.2018. Though G.O.M.No.223, date 09.07.2018 was in existence^{asonthedateof} execution of gift deed by the petitioner in favour^{ofthecorporation,the2} nd respondent had awarded TDR as per G.O.Ms.No.119, MA&UD, dated 28.03.2017. Since the G.O.Ms.No.223 was very much in^{existenceasonthe} date of execution of the gift deed, the petitioner^{isentitledforthebenefitsof} the said G.O., which stipulates awarding of TDRs at^1:4 ratio. Though the petitioner made representations dated 26.11.2018, 08.01.2019, 11.09.2019 and 14.10.2020 requesting to award TDRs in consonance^{withthetermsof} G.O.Ms.No.223, the 2"'‘ respondent did not consider^{thesaidrepresentations} stating that he is awaiting clarification from the^{1^‘respondentinthatregard.} The action of the respondents in not extending the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 09.07.2018, is arbitrary and in violation of the

¶102

A.P.Building Rules and Articles 14 & 300-A of the Constitution^ofIndia.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit^{thattheletterofthe} Commissioner addressed to the Sub Registrar dated 12.10.2018 requesting the petitioner to handover possession of site to GVMC^{bywayofregistered} deed would indicate that the petitioner is in possession of the land and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits^{oftheG.O.Ms.No.223,} dated 09.07.2018 which was in force as on the date of handing over possession and execution of gift deeds. Accordingly,^{prayedtoallowthewrit} petition. 4. On the other hand, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, on counter,^{submittedthat} the petitioner's subject land was acquired in the year^{2015andasonthedate} of the said acquisition, issuance of TDRs.is governed^{byG.O.Ms.No.l68,dated} 07.04.2012 as per which the petitioner is entitled^{forgettingTDRs.} at 1:2 ratio only but the petitioner is claiming TDRs at 1:4^{ratiobyplacingreliance} on G.O.M.No.223, dated 09.07.2018. The learned Standing^Counselwould further submit that the petitioner cannot claim benefits^{oftheG.O.issuedin} the year 2018 with retrospective effect for the land^{acquiredintheyear2015.} The petitioner having failed to execute the gift deed soon^{afteracquisitionof} the land, executed gift deed in the year 2018. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own mistake in not executing^{giftdeedtill2018} to claim benefits of the G.0.223. The authorities had^{rightlyawardedTDRsat} 1:2 ratio, legally entitled to by the petitioner as^{perG.O.Ms.No.l68,dated}

07.05.2012 that was in vogue as on the date of acquisition^{oftheland.The} learned Standing counsel had drawn the attention of^{thisCourttothememo} which was filed vide USR No.23051 of 2022 and submitted that the petitioner's request for issuance of TDRs in light^{ofG.O.Ms.No.223wasnot} accepted by the authorities on the ground that applicability^{ofrulesshallbe} interpreted in prospective manner only and since at the time of acquisition G.O.Ms.No.l68, dated 07.04.2012 holds the field and accordingly TDRs were issued to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner^cannotclaim benefit under G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 09.07.2018. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal.

¶107

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, when the respondent authorities tried to interfere highhandedly in respect of the subject property in the year 2015, the petitioner got filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.34475 of 2015. This Court disposed of the same on 14.10.2015 by recording the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that so far no steps are taken for acquiring the land of the petitioner and as such payment of compensation does not arise and as and when the property is required, the respondent corporation shall follow due process of law, either by acquiring by consent or by following the compulsory acquisition.^This itself would show that the respondent corporation did not acquire the land in the year 2015. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶108

Perusal of the material available on record would^{indicatethatthere} by the IS no dispute regarding acquisition of the land of the petitioner respondent corporation for road widening, but for the^{yearofacquisition} whether it is in the year 2015 or in 2018. According^{tothepetitioner,theland} was acquired in the year 2018, whereas it was in the^{year2015accordingto} the learned Standing counsel.

¶109

In support of his contention, the learned standing^{counselplaced} reliance on a memo No. 1248980/M2/2019, dated 30.03.2022 of the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department. Para-3^{ofthesaidmemo} reads as thus:

¶110

"3. After examining the report of the Commissioner,^{GVMC,andthereportof} the DTCP,AP, it is observed that the said road widening^wastakenup in the year 2015. The applicant's site admeasuring to an extent^{of323.754sq.mt.} covered inn Sy.No.201/15 Part & 211/2 Part of Revllapalem^(V)wastaken over for laying of road and issued TDR. The Commissioner^{GVMChasalready} granted 1:2 TDR certification to the application in lieu of applicants site affected for laying road, since in 2015 the TDR has^{tobeconsidered@1:2as} nr the then prevailing rules. Now the applicant is^{seekingTDR(g)1:4asper} P G.O.Ms.No.223, dt. 07.09.2018 by executing present rules i.e. as per and formed the road by registered gift deed for the site already taken over GVMC by issuing TDR."

¶111

The above would show that the land was acquired^{intheyear2015.}

¶112

Whereas, in support of his contention, the learned^{counselforthe} of the orders passed in Writ Petition petitioner placed on record copy land No.34475 of 2015 filed by the petitioner in respect^ofthesubject questioning the action of the respondent authorities^{intryingtoacquirethe}

ri-

petitioner's land without prior notice and paying compensation. Operative portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:

¶117

\ \ \ \ I

¶118

"2. When the matter is taken up, learned Standing counsel^submits that so far no steps are taken for acquiring the property of the petitioner. Therefore, the question of payment of compensation^does not arise. As and when property is required, the respondentcorporation shall follow the due process either by acquiring by consent or by following the compulsory acquisition. 10. The above writ petition was disposed of on 14.10.2015. The operative portion of the above said orders would make it clear that the subject land was not acquired as on the date of disposal of the writ petition on 14.10.2015.

¶119

Further, the petitioner placed reliance on the letter addressed by the Commissioner, GVMC, Visakhapatnam to the Sub Registrar vide RC.NO.12029/2014/L-32/ACP-I, dated 12.10.2018, copy^{ofwhichismarkedto} the petitioner, in support of his contention. The same^readsasthus:

¶120

"With reference to the above, it is to inform Sri Nagathi Appala Raju, S/o. Tataabai resident of S.No.201/15 Part and 211/2 Part, Madhurawada village, Visakhapatnam, whose site is effected^in80'-00" road widening (Navodaya) to an extent of 323.745 Sq.mts. (o) 387.19 Sq.yards in S.No.211/2 of Madhurawada and 434.782 Sq.mts (or) 520.00 Sq.yards in S.No.201/15 Part of Madhurawada. The applicant is hereby requested to handover the possession of site to GVMC by way of registered deed so as to take necessary further action to lay the road in the applicant site."

¶121

The contents of the above letter unequivocally says that possession

¶122

of the subject land remained with the petitioner as^{onthedateofthesaid} letter dated 12.10.2018. It is also relevant here to note that the memo relied

¶123

<•'

¶124

¶125

on by the learned Standing counsel dated 20.12.2021 nowhere refers to any acquisition proceedings.

¶126

Upon perusal of the orders passed in W.P.No.34475^of2015dated 14.10.2015 and the letter addressed by the Commissioner, GVMC, Visakhapatnam to the Sub Registrar vide RC.No.l2029/2014/L-32/AC P-I, dated 12.10.2018 makes the things clear that the subject land was not acquired in the year 2015 as mentioned in the memo relied on by the learned Standing Counsel and moreover the land remained in possession of the petitioner as on 12.10.2018. It is relevant here to^{notethelasttwolinesof} the above extracted portion which says that the corporation has to take further action to lay the road in the applicant site.^Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the petitioner is in possession of the^subject site as on 12.10.2018. 14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner executed gift deed in favour of the corporation in respect of the subject land on 24.10.2018.^{G.O.Ms.No.223} came into being on 07.09.2018 i.e. to say subsequent^totherequest made^to the petitioner by the Commissioner through letter dated 12.10.2018 for handing over possession of the subject land. Therefore,^the petitioner is entitled to get benefits as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.223 i.e. for getting TDR Certificates at 1:4 ratio of the land handed over to the corporation by way of execution of registered gift deed.

¶127

¶128

In view of the above, this writ petition can be disposed of directing the authorities to issue balance TDRs to the petitioner in lieu of handing over possession of his land in light of G.O.Ms.No.223 dated^07.09.2018.

¶129

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent corporation to issue balance TDRs as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 07.09.2018, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall^{benoorderastocosts.}

¶130

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

¶131

JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶132

Dt.08.05.2024. RR

Nagothi Satyanarayana v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagothi Satyanarayana v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s, Indus Towers Limited, Vs Anantapur Municipal Corporation

Gudapati Durga Varada Bhujanga Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Battula Lakshminarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Karumudi Chenchaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Duvvu Satya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gantyada Govinda Raju Vs the State of Ap