Gadde Babu Rao Vs the State of Ap

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶20

-2-

¶21

HN, J

¶22

W.P.No.22394_2023

¶23

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM.

¶24

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER RANDB, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND CRF, NEW HOD BUILDING COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA

¶25

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANDB, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶26

THE DY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RANDB, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, VIZIANAGARAM.

¶27

THE VIZIANAGARAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VIZIANAGARAM.

¶28

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶29

THE TAHSILDAR, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶30

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶31

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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not initiating the acquisition proceedings or paying compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for the total land admeasuring an extent of 1,798 sq. yards in Sy.No.77/5 and Sy.No.77/6 situated in Vizianagaram Bit-I, Vizianagaram District, lost by the petitioner for the purpose of laying of national highway (RandB), municipal road and footpath, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against the Norms of Public Policy and Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and to issue a consequential direction directing the respondent authorities to pay compensation or by way of Transferable Development Right (TDR) Bonds and to pass Prayer amended as per Courts Order Dt. 29.06.2026 in I.A.No.1 of 2026.

¶32

-3-

¶33

HN, J W.P.No.22394_2023

¶34

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶35

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 pleased to direct the respondent authorities to initiate the land acquisition proceedings for the land admeasuring an extent of 1,798 sq. yards of the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶36

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶37

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 may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to initiate the land acquisition proceedings for the land, admeasuring an extent of 1,798 sq. yards in Sy. No. 77/5 & Sy. No. 77/6 situated in Vizianagaram Bit-I, of the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶39

1.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

¶42

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶43

3.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶44

4.Modalavalasa Krishna RaoSC for skl vzm kkd Municipal Corporations

¶45

-4-

¶46

HN, J W.P.No.22394_2023

¶47

ORDER:

¶48

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners purchased land admeasuring 5,200 square yards, forming part and parcel of Sy.Nos.107 and 108 of Vizianagaram Village, under a Sale Certificate dated 06.03.1982 executed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vizianagaram, in E.P.No.186 of 70-71. The petitioners subsequently partitioned the property and have since been enjoying their respective shares.

¶49

The property was purchased in a public auction. During the year 1982, the petitioners filed O.S.No.41 of 1982, wherein the parties entered into a compromise. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed for handing over possession of the site to the petitioners.

¶50

In the interregnum period, the National Highways Authority had expanded the bridge abutting the petitioners’ property, and a road was laid. At that point of time, no compensation was paid. In that regard, the petitioners submitted a representation on 10.09.1994.

¶51

Subsequently, a further extent of land was taken over for construction of a school without paying of any compensation. The petitioners were advised to execute a registered Gift Deed in respect of the extent of land taken over for public purposes to enable them to claim TDR bonds. Accordingly, the petitioners executed a registered

-5-

HN, J

W.P.No.22394_2023

Gift Deed dated 20.11.2021 in respect of an extent of 1,765 square yards and requested the respondent authorities to issue TDR bonds.

¶56

It is submitted that the Commissioner of respondent No.8 addressed a letter to respondent No.1 seeking appropriate instructions regarding the grant of TDR bonds to the petitioners in respect of the land taken over for public purposes. Respondent No.1, in turn, directed the respondent No.8 to take an appropriate decision at its own level without further escalating, as the issue pertains to the grant of TDR bonds in respect of the land taken over by respondent No.8 for public purposes.

¶57

However, respondent No.8 issued the impugned proceedings denying the entitlement of the petitioners’ and has taken a completely different stand. It was observed in the said proceedings that if any deficit in the extent of land was found in the petitioners’ holding, the petitioners would have to work out their remedies against their vendors.

¶58

It is further submitted that, in pursuance to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.39426 of 2022, the Mandal Surveyor conducted a survey and submitted a report affirming the extent of land utilized for formation of the road as well as the extent utilized for construction of the school building. The Mandal Surveyor certified that the petitioners

¶59

are in possession of 3,402 square yards out of the total extent of 5,200 square yards purchased by them.

¶60

-6-

¶61

HN, J W.P.No.22394_2023

¶62

It is submitted that, unmindful of the said survey report, respondent No.8 rejected the case of the petitioners for grant of TDR bonds.

¶63

The learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.8 filed a detailed counter affidavit and submitted that the survey was conducted in pursuance of the directions of this Court and that the findings recorded by the Mandal Surveyor are disputed by respondent No.8.

¶64

The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.8 further submits that the petitioners would have to work out their remedies in respect of the extent of land not in their possession and that the appropriate remedy lies elsewhere and not before this Court. It is submitted that the petitioners ought to initiate appropriate proceedings against their vendors instead of pursuing the present writ petition.

¶65

It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Gift Deed was executed without any correspondence with respondent No.8 and that the claim of the petitioners is belated.

¶66

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.8.

¶67

The short point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation/TDR bonds in respect of the extent of land taken over by the respondent authorities for public purposes.

¶68

-7-

¶69

HN, J W.P.No.22394_2023

¶70

As seen from the documents furnished by the petitioners and the survey report annexed to the material papers, the report of the Mandal Surveyor categorically certifies that the petitioners are in possession of 3,402 square yards out of the total extent of 5,200 square yards. It is also not in dispute that the respondents have taken over a portion of the petitioners’ property for the purpose of road widening and certain portion of the petitioners’ property has been utilized for construction of a school.

¶71

The respondent authorities cannot, as a matter of right, take over the property of any individual without following the due procedure of law. In the present case, respondent No.8 admittedly took over the petitioners’ land without issuing any notice or without conducting any survey prior thereto.

¶72

The proceedings of respondent No.8 dated 07.01.2022 categorically affirm that an extent of 1,475.76 square meters of the petitioners’ land was affected. The said proceedings also refer to the Gift Deed dated 20.11.2021 executed by the petitioners and reveal that respondent No.8 sought instructions from respondent No.1, as the property has been taken over long ago for the purpose of road formation.

¶73

By proceedings dated 14.02.2022, respondent No.1 categorically held that respondent No.8 is the competent authority to grant TDR

-8-

HN, J

W.P.No.22394_2023

bonds and that the local authority is required to examine the eligibility of the applicants in accordance with the prevailing rules and take necessary action. Respondent No.1 further directed respondent No.8 not to escalate issues that could be resolved on its own level.

¶78

Curiously, respondent No.8, by proceedings dated 24.06.2022, took a diagonally opposite stand from the one taken in its earlier proceedings dated 07.01.2022. In the said proceedings, respondent No.8 rejected the petitioners’ claim for TDR bonds on the ground that the Municipality had never undertaken the road widening and that the National Highways Department alone had carried out the road widening; therefore, respondent No.8 was not competent enough to grant TDR bonds. The petitioners were accordingly informed that their request for grant of TDR in respect of the land lost in road widening could not be considered.

¶79

The stand now taken by respondent No.8 is self-contradictory. The respondent No.8 has not denied the widening of road or construction of school. In such circumstances, the point of time at which the land of the petitioners was taken over for public purposes cannot be treated as a bar to grant TDR bonds.

¶80

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are willing to execute a fresh Gift Deed in favour of respondent No.8, as the earlier gift deed was cancelled.

¶81

-9-

¶82

HN, J W.P.No.22394_2023

¶83

The respondent No.8 shall consider the application of the petitioners for grant of TDR bonds in respect of the extent of land which was affected in the road widening as well as the extent utilized for construction of the school.

¶84

The survey report dated 31.05.2023 shall taken into consideration for all purposes while determining the extent of land taken over for public purposes and the petitioners’ eligibility for grant of TDR bonds.

¶85