Kosuri Veera Prajanaik, E.G. Dist Vs Prl Secy, Maud Dept., Hyd & 2 Ot

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 impugned action of the respondents in laying the road in part of Petitioners house site of a total extent of 1047 sq. Yards in T.S.No.1967/1, Kakinada Municipal corporation area Kakinada and also not paying compensation as per law despite notice dated 12.1.21009 without any notification, without payment of any compensation and without initiating any action under the provisions of Sec. 146 & Sec 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act . 1955, or under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or by private negotiations as illegal, arbitrary and

¶16

2

¶17

violative of principles of natural justice etc and consequently direct the Respondents to pay compensation for the portion of land encroached by the Respondents in laying the road by issuing a suitable notification, and payment of compensation or initiating any action under the provisions of Secs.146 & Sec 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act 1955, or under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or by private negotiations and grant such other just and consequential relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 44853 OF 2013

¶19

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 fix an early date for final hearing of the main Writ petition pending disposal of the above Writ petition and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 7152 OF 2014

¶21

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

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

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 amend the main prayer as "aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in laying road in an extent of 430 Sq Yards through petitioner's land out of an extent of 1047 Sq yards in T.S.No.1967/1, Kakinada Municipal Corporation, Kakinada without issuing notice, without paying compensation, and without initiating the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013" IN PLACE OF "The action of the respondents in laying the road in part of petitioner's house site of a total extent of 1047 Sq Yards in T.S. T.S.No.1967/1, Kakinada Municipal Corporation, Kakinada" and pass such other order.

¶24

3

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶26

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 allow the Leave petition/ Counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd Respondent in W.P.No.36083 of 2013 filed the Writ Petitioner herein and prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above writ petition and pass such other order.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.T V SRI DEVI

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

M Krishna Rao SC for skl vzm kkd Municipal Corporations

¶31

GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 33130/2016

¶33

Between:

¶34

KOSURI VEERA PRAJANAIK, E.G. DIST, S/O KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RIO DAD: 67-21-4, 6TH CROSS, L.B.NAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

AND

¶37

PRL SECY MAUD DEPT HYD 2 OT, SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD.

¶38

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KAKINADA, REP. BY MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, KAKINANDA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶39

THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN COUNTRY PLANNING, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD

¶40

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶41

4

¶42

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 toIssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not handing over the alternate site to an extent of 665 Sq Yards earmarked in LP.NO. 421/81 as per resolution No. 249 dt 28.06.1985 passed by rd respondent in lieu of petitioner's land to an extent of 665 Square Yards which is part of 1047 1/9 Square Yards situated in T.S.No. 1966/1, Block No.16 (Old Block No.2) Dairy Farm Area, Suryaraopeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District and also not permitting the petitioner to make constructions in 1047 1/9 Square Yards situated in T.S.No. 1966/1, Block No.16 (Old Block No.2), Dairy Farm Area, Suryaraopeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and be pleased to pass

¶43

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 40964 OF 2016

¶44

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 direct the 2nd respondent to hand over the alternate site to an extent of 665 Sq Yards earmarked by the respondents in LP.NO. 421/81 by considering the petitioner's representations dt 29.03.2016 and 12.05.2015 forth with pending disposal of the above writ petition and be pleased to pass such other order.

¶45

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶46

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 permit the petitioner to construct compound wall around petitioner's house site admeasuring 1047 1/9 Square Yards situate,' in T.S.No. 1966/1, Block No.16 (Old Block No.2), Dairy Farm Area, Suryaraopeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District pending the disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order.

¶47

IA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶48

5

¶49

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 receive the following documents 1) Letter issued in Roc.No. 74L812017lcl, dt 27.08.20t7, 2) Government Memo No. 3009/M2l89- 3, dt 13.05.1992, 3) Abstract of G.O.Ms.No. 389 MA, dt 10.09.1978, 4) G.O.Ms.No. 256, Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M.A) dt 19.04.1978, 5) G.O.Ms.No. 105 M.A., Housing, Municipal Administration & Urban Dev Department dt 11.02.1982 and6) G.O.Ms.No. 203 MA, Housing, Municipal Administration & Urban Dev Department dt.19.4.1985 ;s additional material papers in the above writ petition and pass such other order.

¶50

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶51

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 issue writ , order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying compensation to petitioner in respect of petitioner’s land to an extent of 665 Sq yards out of 1047 1/9 Sq yards which is passing through proposed 60 feet master plan road by initiating land acquisition proceedings, and in not granting permission to the petitioner to construct house in the remaining extent of land i.e., 382 1/9 sq yards out of 1047 1/9 sq yards situated in T.S.No. 1966/1, Block No.16 (old Block No.2), L.P.No. 421/81, Dairy Farm Area, Suryaraopeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act and consequently direct the respondents to pay fair compensation to petitioner for his land to an extent of 665 sq yards and allow the petitioner to make constructions in rest of site i.e., 382 1/9 Sq yards in T.S.No. 1966/1, Block No.16 (old Block No.2), L.P.No. 421/81, Dairy Farm Area, Suryaraopeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District by granting building permission forth with and pass such other order or orders in the circumstances of the case”. IN PLACE OF“ To declare the action of the respondents in not handing over the alternate site to an extent of 665 Sq Yards earmarked in LP No. 421 / 81 as per resolution No.249 dt 28.06.1985 passed by 2'^'^ respondent in lieu of petitioner’s land to an extent of 665 Square Yards which is part of

¶52

6

¶53

1047 1/9 Square Yards situated in T.S.No. 1966/1, Block No.16 (old Block No. 2) Dairy Farm Area, Suryaraopeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District and also not permitting the petitioner to make constructions in 1047 1/9 Square Yards in T.S.No. 1966/1, Block No.16 (old Block No.2), Dairy Farm Area, Suryaraopeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India” and pass such other order.

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶55

1.T V SRI DEVI

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶57

1.M Krishna Rao SC for skl vzm kkd Municipal Corporations

¶58

2.GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)

¶59

The Court made the following:

¶60

7

¶61

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶62

WRIT PETITION Nos.36083 of 2013 & 33130 of 2016

¶63

COMMON ORDER:

¶64

W.P.No.36083 of 2013 is filed questioning the action of Respondents in laying a road in part of the Petitioner’s house site of a total extent of 1047 Sq. Yards in T.S.No.1967/1, Kakinada Municipal Corporation Area, Kakinada and also not paying compensation despite notice dated 12.01.2009, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶65

W.P.No.33130 of 2016 is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not handing over the alternate site of an extent of 665 Sq. Yards earmarked in LP.No.421/81 as per Resolution No.249, dated 28.06.1985 passed by Respondent No.2 in lieu of the Petitioner’s land of an extent of 665 Sq. Yards, which is part of 1047 1/9 Sq. Yards situated in T.S.No.1966/1, Block No.16 (Old Block No.2) Dairy Farm Area, Suryaraopeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District and not permitting the Petitioner to make constructions in the above referred site, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶66

As the issue in these Writ Petitions is common, with the consent of both the counsel, a Common Order is being passed.

¶67

W.P.No.33130 of 2016 is taken as the lead case for description

¶68

of the parties and for narration of facts.

¶69

8

¶70

The Petitioner is the absolute owner of a house site

¶71

admeasuring 1047 1/9 Sq. Yards in T.S.No.1966/1, Block No.16 (Old Block No.2) Dairy Farm Area, Suryaraopeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District. The said land was purchased by the mother of the Petitioner under a registered Sale Deed from one Kakarapalli Nookamma vide document No.841/1964. Subsequently, the Petitioner obtained a layout plan for construction of a residential building from Respondent No.2 vide LP.No.421/1981 and pursuant thereto, the mother of the Petitioner raised structures up to basement level and due to paucity of funds, she could not construct the remaining portion.

¶72

Thereafter, a registered Gift Settlement Deed was executed on 16.06.1982 in favour of the Petitioner and on the basis of the said Gift Deed, the Petitioner submitted an application on 21.03.1983 for the building plan seeking to construct a residential building in the said house site. Though the same was already approved in the year 1981, as mentioned above, vide Endorsement dated 25.11.1983, Respondent No.2 rejected the building permission on the ground that a 60 feet road as per the master plan was proposed to pass through an extent of 665 Sq. Yards out of 1047 1/9 Sq. Yards of the Petitioner.

¶73

9

¶74

On being informed of the same, the Petitioner gave a representation to Respondent No.2 either for changing the allotment of the road or allotting 665 Sq. Yards of alternate site in the same layout. A notice was issued by Respondent No.2 on 06.04.1984 stating that as per the master plan, the road going through the property of the Petitioner adjoins two important roads and it was decided to acquire the land of the Petitioner and allot open land in LP.No.421/81 and called for the opinion of the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad.

¶75

The Petitioner was also called upon to give his opinion. The Petitioner agreed to the proposal and on the basis thereof, the Municipal Council, Kakinada passed a resolution vide Resolution No.249 on 28.06.1985 for the allotment of alternate land in lieu of the land acquired from the Petitioner. A letter was addressed by the Chairman of Respondent No.2 vide Roc.No.8480/83G, dated 12.11.1990 to Respondent No.1 to approve the proposal for the allotment of an alternate site of 665 Sq. Yards to the Petitioner, as the Corporation did not have necessary funds for paying compensation to the Petitioner.

¶76

10

¶77

However, in spite of the Municipal Council’s resolution to lay a 60 feet road as mentioned in the master plan, no road was laid into the land of the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 had accorded building permissions to various persons and new buildings have virtually emerged, blocking the approach road for laying a 60 feet road as per the master plan. It is stated that no road was laid. Although the master plan was lapsed over a period of time, the Petitioner submitted a representation on 12.05.2015 to Respondent No.2 to permit him to make construction in his property of an extent of 1047 1/9 Sq. Yards. As there was no response from the Respondent authority, another representation was also given on 29.03.2016.

¶78

As the Petitioner’s right to enjoy the property was being attached for one reason or the other, neither paying compensation nor giving an alternate site, the Petitioner initially filed W.P.No.36083 of 2013 for the reliefs mentioned above. As no Counter Affidavit was filed in W.P.No.36083 of 2013 by any of the Respondents, the Petitioner subsequently filed W.P.No.33130 of 2016 to hand over the alternate site as promised under the Municipal resolution.

¶79

A Counter Affidavit was filed in W.P.No.33130 of 2016 by Respondent No.2 on 12.04.2017, wherein it was stated that a master plan was approved by Respondent No.2 vide G.O.Ms.No.389, dated

¶80

11

¶81

10.09.1975 for planned development of Kakinada Town by earmarking area for residential, commercial, industrial, public and semi-public recreational zones. It is stated that the master plan notified the widening of existing roads and the proposed road network was planned in a systematic manner for better connectivity in the future, it is stated that as the Petitioner’s site was located near dairy farm of the town, adjoining an 80 feet wide road leading to Port Railway Station from the dairy farm centre.

¶82

Further, it is stated that the Petitioner’s site is part and parcel of a strip of land in T.S.No.1966/1 in Block No.16 of Suryaraopeta of Kakinada and on the western side of the said strip of land in T.S.No.1966 some private lands in T.S.No.1965 are in existence. It is stated that as per the master plan of Kakinada Town, two 60 feet wide master plan roads are earmarked for better connectivity of the area. In the year 1981, the DT & CP had approved a layout pattern for the land in T.S.No.1965 with LP.No.421/81 in an extent of Ac.26.30 cents and after approval of the master plan, the Director of Town & Country Planning had to approve the layout pattern as per the proposed master plan roads.

¶83

12

¶84

12. Accordingly, the layout was approved with the proposed 60 feet

¶85

master plan road to a length of 60 feet upto western boundary of the Petitioner’s site. It was also stated that the Petitioner had submitted an application on 21.03.1983 for permission to construct a building in the site, which is in the alignment of the said 60 feet proposed master plan road and the same was returned unapproved by Respondent No.2 on 23.04.1983. It is stated that the Petitioner had requested for an alternative site in the reserved open space of the layout in LP.No.421/81 and the then Municipal Council had resolved in C.R.No.249, dated 28.06.1985 to allot 665 Sq. Yards in the reserved open space of LP.No.421/81. In continuation of the resolution of the Municipal Council, proposals were submitted to Respondent No.1 for their approval. However, in spite of the continuous communication between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, it is stated that Respondent No.1 did not accept the proposal for allotment of the reserved site in LP.No.421/81 to the Petitioner.

¶86

As the Municipal Council is not empowered to hand over any Municipal site to any private individual unless there is specific approval of the Government, the proposal to allot alternate site to the Petitioner could not fructify as Respondent No.1 did not agree to the same vide Memo No.3009/M2/89-3, M.A. dated 13.05.1992. It is stated that

¶87

13

¶88

Respondent No.2 thereafter sought for re-consideration of the issue of exchange of Petitioner’s site with layout open space and Respondent No.1 vide Memo No.1403/N1/2001/4, M.A. dated 10.05.2001 had informed that the exchange of land is not the correct policy.

¶89

It is also stated that G.O.Ms.No.72, M.A., dated 20.02.2002 was issued by Respondent No.1 specifically directing the Municipalities not to utilize open spaces in the layouts other than the intended original use such as park, playground, urban forestry etc. It is stated that as per A.P. Building Rules, 2017 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.168, MA, dated 07.04.2012 Respondent No.1 had notified that no development permission shall be given unless the road widening part effected in master plan road is surrendered on free of cost to the urban local body.

¶90

It is also stated that Respondent No.1 had provided a facility to issue T.D.R Certificate equivalent to 200% of the built up area and such area surrendered and the Petitioner would avail the same. It is stated that the Town Surveyor in the presence of the Petitioner and concerned Town Planning officials conducted a survey on 29.01.2023 and submitted a survey report on 30.01.2023. As per the survey report, dated 30.01.2023 of the Town Surveyor, Kakinada the exact

¶91

14

¶92

extent of site of the Petitioner utilized by Respondent No.2 for laying road is 430.83 Sq. Yards.

¶93

In the W.P.No.36083 of 2013, no Counter Affidavit was filed by the Respondent-Corporation and this Court on 28.04.2025 directed Respondent No.2-Commissioner, Kakinada Municipal Corporation to be present in the Court virtually and explain as to why no Counter Affidavit has been filed in spite of a lapse of more than 12 years. On the following date i.e. 05.05.2025, the Commissioner of Kakinada Municipal Corporation appeared through virtual mode and the Counter Affidavit was filed. The pleadings in the Counter Affidavit in W.P.No.36083 of 2013 are a reiteration of the contentions raised in the Counter Affidavit filed in W.P.No.33130 of 2016.

¶94

It is stated that Respondent No.1 is willing to issue T.D.R bond to the Petitioner and as the Petitioner did not come forward to transfer ownership of site by way of a gift deed to the Respondent-Corporation, further action for issue of T.D.R bond to that extent could not be effected.

¶95

In view of the survey report, an application was filed by the Petitioner vide I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.33130 of 2016 seeking for amendment of the prayer to permit the Petitioner to seek for

¶96

15

¶97

construction of a house in the remaining extent. It is also stated across the Bar by the counsel for the Petitioner on instructions that the Petitioner is not willing to accept the T.D.R bond and is insistent on alternate site or compensation as per The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013).

¶98

Basing on the rival contentions, the following issues arise for consideration;

¶99

(i) Whether the action of Respondent-Corporation in laying a road in the property of the Petitioner without initiating any proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 could be sustained?

¶100

(ii) Whether the Petitioner is bound to accept T.D.R. Certificates, which are issued to land losers under A.P. Building Rules, 2017?

¶101

Issues (i) and (ii): The initial building plan of the petitioner was refused on the ground that a 60 feet road as per the master plan to be passing through an extent of 665 Sq. Yards out of 1047 1/9 Sq. Yards of the Petitioner. The Petitioner then gave a representation to Respondent No.2 either for changing the alignment of the road or provide an alternative site of 665 Sq. Yards in the same layout. The Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 06.04.1984 informed the petitioner

¶102

16

¶103

that as per the master plan, the 60 feet road going through the property of the Petitioner joins two important roads and it was decided to acquire the land of the Petitioner and allot open land in LP.No.421/81.

¶104

The Petitioner was also called upon to give his opinion. The Petitioner agreed to the proposal and on the basis thereof, the Municipal Council, Kakinada passed a resolution vide Resolution No.249 on 28.06.1985 for allotment of alternate land in lieu of the land acquired from the Petitioner. A letter was addressed by the Chairman of Respondent No.2 vide Roc.No.8480/83G, dated 12.11.1990 to Respondent No.1 to approve the proposal for allotment of alternate site of 665 Sq. Yards to the Petitioner, as the Corporation does not have necessary funds for paying compensation to the Petitioner.

¶105

The initial proposal to allot alternate site to the Petitioner could not fructify as Respondent No.1 did not agree to the same vide Memo No.3009/M2/89-3, M.A. dated 13.05.1992 and attempts were made for re-consideration of the issue, however, Respondent No.1 vide Memo No.1403/N1/2001/4, M.A. dated 10.05.2001 had informed that the exchange of land is not the correct policy.

¶106

17

¶107

The hope and the basis for consent for acquisition from 1984 onwards for alternative site fizzled out and the Respondent No.2 remained indifferent to the petitioner ever since to initiate proceedings for land acquisition. In the counter affidavit, there is no sense of concern and responsibility towards the Petitioner for utilising her property since 1984 onwards. There is no whisper to pay compensation for utilising the land of the Petitioner for more than 40 years and initiate land acquisition process as a responsible Corporation. The approach of Respondent No.2 is appalling to say the least and is similar to that of a land grabber.

¶108

The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the constitution of India and it states that no person shall be deprived of the property save by authority of law. In this case, the Petitioner, a woman, who dreamt of constructing a house in the subject property in 1980s was denied without any acquisition proceedings. The Article 300A reads as under;

¶109

“Article 300A. No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”

¶110

18

¶111

With passage of time and in recognition of developing law, Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar¹ , held that the right to property though a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the constitution of India is now considered as a human right under Right to shelter, health, employment etc. The Paragraph No.33 thereof is extracted below;

¶112

“The right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a human right. Human rights have already been considered in the realm of individual rights such as the right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter and employment, etc. But now human rights are gaining a multifaceted dimension. Right to property is also considered very much a part of the new dimension.”

¶113

It would also be profitable to refer to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court in Vidya Devi v. State of H.P.,² in a similar fact scenario where an individual was denied compensation for over

¶114

40 years held that the State cannot arrogate power beyond the constitution and deny compensation for the land acquired. The relevant paragraphs 12.3 to 12.9 read as under;

¶115

“12.3. To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Reliance is placed

¶116

1 (2011) 10 SCC 404

¶117

2 (2020) 2 SCC 569

¶118

19

¶119

on the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai 7, wherein this Court held that: (SCC p. 634, para 6)

¶120

“6. … Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of “eminent domain” may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid.”

¶121

(emphasis supplied)

¶122

12.4. In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy 8, this Court held that: (SCC p. 526, para 21)

¶123

“21. If the right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300-A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed.”

¶124

(emphasis supplied)

¶125

12.5. In Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P .9, this Court recognised the right to property as a basic human right in the following words: (SCC p. 379, para 30)

¶126

“30. It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different political thinkers that some amount of property right is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic oppression of the Government. Jefferson was of the view that liberty cannot long subsist without the support of property. “Property must be secured, else liberty cannot subsist” was the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the view that property itself is the seed-bed which must be conserved if other constitutional values are to flourish, is the consensus among political thinkers and jurists.”

¶127

(emphasis supplied)

¶128

20

¶129

12.6. In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat 10, this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 627, Para 48)

¶130

“48. … In other words, Article 300-A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300-A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation.”

¶131

(emphasis supplied)

¶132

12.7. In this case, the appellant could not have been forcibly dispossessed of her property without any legal sanction, and without following due process of law, and depriving her payment of just compensation, being a fundamental right on the date of forcible dispossession in 1967.

¶133

12.8. The contention of the State that the appellant or her predecessors had “orally” consented to the acquisition is completely baseless. We find complete lack of authority and legal sanction in compulsorily divesting the appellant of her property by the State.

¶134

12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC5 wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution.”

¶135

21

¶136

27. In Bimal Kumar Shah’s case (3 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme

¶137

Court crystallised seven (7) sub-rights in the process of acquisition and held that the ownership of the property remains with the landowner till compensation is paid.

¶138

As regards the TDRs, there can be no compulsion on the petitioner to accept the offer of TDRs by the Respondent No.2 and it is the petitioner's absolute discretion to refuse the same. The Rule 168(2) of the A.P. Building Rules, 2017 provides for issuance of TDRs @ 200 % of the value of the land taken for laying master plan road, but for this Rule to apply, the consent from the petitioner and consequential registered gift deed should be executed as per Rule 168.The Rule 168 is extracted below for ready reference;

¶139

“ Rule 168: Grant of Transferable Development Rights: (1) Transferable Development Rights” (TDR) can be awarded only when such lands are transferred to the local body/ Development Authority as the case may be by way of registered gift deed . The award would be in the form of a TDR Certificate issued by the Competent Authority / Sanctioning Authority. is and the same has no relevance while considering compensation for the land acquired.”

¶140

22

¶141

29. The above Rule clearly indicates that TDRs would be given only

¶142

when lands are transferred to the competent authority by way of a registered gift deed. The Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, defines the term “Gift” and as per that provision, a gift deed should be made voluntarily and without consideration. In this case, as stated above, the Petitioner is not inclined towards TDRs and the Respondent-Corporation cannot compel the petitioner to execute Registered Gift deed for the land acquired.

¶143

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ petitions are allowed with following directions;

¶144

(i) The Respondents shall forthwith initiate proceedings for acquisition of the land of the Petitioner under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶145

(ii) The procedure for acquisition till payment of compensation shall be concluded within an outer time limit of six (6) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶146

(iii) The Respondents shall also pay compensation for utilising the property of the Petitioner from 1984 onwards.

¶147

(iv) The Petitioner shall make a building application for the balance extent of land as per the A.P Building Rules, 2017 and the Respondent No.2 shall consider the same as per the Rules.

¶148

23

¶149

(v) The Respondent No.2 shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the Petitioner towards costs.

¶150

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶151

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶152

Date: 13.08.2025 IS/KLP

¶153

24