D.Chenchemma Vs State of Andhra PradeSh

D.SATISH KUMAR, S/O LATE D.NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT D.NO.18-8-36/E2, SAPTHAGIRI NAGAR, NEAR GANGAMMA GUDI, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 501.

¶14

...PETITIONER(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 238

¶17

TIRUPATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, TILAK ROAD, TIRUAPTI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 501

¶18

TIRUPATI SMART CITY CORPORATION LIMITED, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL BUILDING COMPLEX, TILAK ROAD, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 501

¶19

2

¶20

TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 501

¶21

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, - CHITTOOR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE COMPLEX, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 002.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

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 an order or direction, in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in initiating the works of splay alignment of Garuda Varadhi Flyover at Tirumala Bypass Road and Karakambadi Road Junction in the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.7/1B and 7/1C to an extent of 2160 Sq.ft. or 240 Sq.yds. in No.9 Akkarampalle village accounts, Tirupati, Chittoor District, without initiating land acquisition proceedings, without paying compensation, without the consent of the petitioner and forcing the petitioner to accept TDR Certificate in place of compensation as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authority Act, 2016 and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents i)To initiate land acquisition proceedings under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and pay compensation to the petitioner for acquiring her land in Sy.No.7/1B and 7/1C in No.9 Akkarampalle village accounts, Tirupati, Chittoor District ii)To enhance the compensation payable to the petitioner for the loss of structures in our land in Sy.No.7/1B and 7/1C in No.9 Akkarampalle village accounts, Tirupati, Chittoor District iii)To fix and pay compensation to the petitioner for laying underground cables and pipelines in our property in Sy.No.7/1B and 7/1C in No.9 Akkarampalle village accounts, Tirupati, Chittoor District iv)Not to insist upon the petitioners to accept TDR Certificate in the place of compensation for acquiring our land in Sy.No.7/1B and 7/1C in No.9 Akkarampalle village accounts, Tirupati, Chittoor District and pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶25

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

¶26

3

¶27

direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.05.2020 and pass suitable orders and pass

¶28

IA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶29

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 not to proceed with any activities in the land of the petitioner to an extent of 2160 Sq.ft. or 240 Sq.yds. inSy.No.7/1B and 7/1C of Akkarampalle Village Account No.9, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District and pass

¶30

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶31

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 appoint an Advocate Commissioner for conducting survey with the assistance of Town Surveyor; for demarcating the boundaries; and for marking physical features of the petition schedule property to assess the extent of petition schedule property affected by the construction works being carried out by the 2nd respondent and pass

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶33

1.MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶35

1.POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In

¶36

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶37

3.MUNI REDDY PERURU

¶38

4.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶39

5.Karri kalyan Durga Prasad SC FOR TUDA

¶40

The Court made the following:

¶41

4

¶42

Order:-

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in acquiring the petitioners' land without following the due process of law. It is submitted that the respondent-Municipal Corporation had issued a notice dated 16.05.2020 requiring about 370 square feet of the property belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of Garuda Varadhi near Leela Mahal Circle under the Smart City Project. The petitioners were also called upon to furnish the property documents for obtaining TDR Bonds from the respondent Corporation.

¶44

It is submitted that the respondents cannot compel the petitioners to accept TDR Bonds when the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are required to be followed in cases of acquisition of private properties for the purpose of road widening or other public purposes. Unmindful of the same, the respondents have taken over the petitioners' property and handed over a cheque for Rs.3,89,700/- towards compensation for the demolished structures.

¶45

It is submitted that the petitioners have accepted the said amount under protest and are legally entitled to appropriate compensation, which would have to be determined by applying the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

¶46

5

¶47

Resettlement Act, 2013 for the acquisition of the property. It is submitted that though the notice was issued for taking over 370 square feet of the property, a much larger extent of the property has been taken over by the respondentMunicipal Corporation.

¶48

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipal Corporation has filed a counter stating that the respondents had paid compensation towards the structural value of the shop rooms amounting to Rs.3,89,700/- and that an extent of 370 square feet was required for the Master Plan road. It is submitted that the project was undertaken for the convenience of vehicular traffic and that the procedure for taking over the said extent of 370 square feet of property was followed. It is also stated that the shops were unauthorizedly erected on the road portion. However, on humanitarian grounds, the structural value of the shops was paid to the petitioners. It is also stated that TDR Bonds were offered to the petitioners for the proportionate extent of land and that the petitioners were called upon to furnish the details.

¶49

Considering the submissions, respondent Nos.2 to 5 would have to determine the actual extent of land or property belonging to the petitioners that was taken over for public purposes, and the respondents would have to adequately compensate the petitioners in light of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Section 145 of the Municipal Corporation Act would

¶50

6

¶51

entitle the Corporation to acquire any property on payment of compensation.

¶52

As the petitioners have expressed their unwillingness to accept the TDR Bonds offered by the respondents, the respondents would have to compensate the petitioners by following the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, after duly determining the actual extent of land rightfully belonging to the petitioners that has been taken over for public purposes.

¶53

In this regard, the petitioners shall submit their title documents to the respondents to enable them to conduct a proper survey and determine the extent of the property that was affected and taken over by the 3rd respondent for the purpose of road widening. Upon determining the extent of the said property, the petitioners' representation shall be forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee for determining the petitioners' entitlement to compensation payable under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The respondents shall first offer TDR Bonds. If the same are not acceptable to the petitioners, the respondents shall compensate the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The Corporation Committee shall dispose of the petitioners' application within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of the same after the survey is conducted.

¶54

7

¶55