Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rayya Laxmi Narayana vs The State Of Ap on 14 October, 2025
APHC010575262024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 30398/2024
Between:
1. RAYYA LAXMI NARAYANA, S/O LATE RAYYA SRIRAMULU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O D NO. 49-47-8, FLAT NO.203
PAR RESIDENCY, SHANTHIPURAM,NEAR 4TH TOWN
POLICE STATION AKKAYYAPALEM,
VISAKHAPATNAM(URBAN)AKKAYYAPALENI,
VISAKHAPATNAM,ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN 530016.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY SPL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPT SECRETARIAT BUILDING
VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI ANDHRA PRADESH
2. THE DIRECTORATE OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
GOVT OF A P, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR MGM CAPITAL
GROUND FLOOR BESIDE LITTLE VILLAGE RESTAURANT
CHINAKAKANI MANGALAGIRI GUNTUR 522508
3. THE TANUKU MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
4, NARENDHRANATH ST, OLD TOWN TIMMARAJUPURAM,
TANUKU, ANDHRA PRADESH
4. VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS
COMMISSIONER JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BUILDING, CANAL
ROAD, ONE TOWN, VIJAYAWADA - 520001.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that
in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High
//2//
WP.No.30398 of 2024
Court may be pleased topleased to issue appropriate writ, order or
direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the Memo
1768902/H1/2024 DT 20-08-2024 and consequently TDR No.
1081/00043/TDR/KP/2022/Revision 1 dt. 29-10-2024 as arbitrary,
illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the
Constitution of India and well-settled principles of natural justice and
Consequently set aside the Memo vide 1768902/H1/2024 dt 20-08-
2024 and the TDRs vide 1081/00043/TDR/KP/2022Resvisionldt
29/10/2024 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 allow the benefit of TDR awarded to the in
favour of the petitioner by suspending the operation of the Memo
1768902/H1/2024 DT ; 20-08-2024 pending the above Writ petition
and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. NAMBURI SURYA VENKATA MAHARSHI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities
2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
3. S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC
The Court made the following:
//3//
WP.No.30398 of 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.30398 OF 2024
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the issuance of Memo 1768902/H1/2024, dated 20.08.2024 and consequently issuing TDR No.1081/00043/TDR/KP/2022/Revision-1, dated 29.10.2024.
2. Sri.Ganta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the unilateral action of the respondent in revising TDRs issued to the petitioner from 1:4 to 1:2. It is submitted that the petitioner was conned to surrender his land and execute a gift deed for the purpose of issuance of TDR bonds.
3. It is submitted that, petitioner executed a gift deed dated 15.02.2022 in favour of the 3rd respondent for utilization of the land gifted by the petitioner for public purpose. In pursuance of the promise of the 3rd respondent for issuance of TDR bonds at the ratio of 1:4, the 3rd respondent has issued TDR bonds on 05.03.2022.
4. The 3rd respondent proposed a master plan for Tanuku Municipality on 08.10.2024 and issued GOMs.No.204. The lands belonging to three families were affected in the proposed road //4// WP.No.30398 of 2024 widening, and the landlords gifted the affected portion of land in favour of the 3rd respondent. The landlords were issued the TDR Certificates in lieu of the land gifted to the Municipality. All the land owners were allotted TDRs in the 1:4 ratio.
5. The CARD Value of the land was taken as a base price, and TDRs at 1:4 for the land gifted were issued to the landlord. The 2nd respondent made the TDR certificates visible on the DPMS website, and they are available for purchase by anyone. The transaction of buying and selling TDRs is conducted through the online process on the DPMS website of the 2nd respondent. The landlords have sold the TDR bonds issued to some of the prospective purchasers. The subsequent purchasers filed writ petitions aggrieved by the action of respondent authorities in re- issuing TDR bonds at the revised 1:2 ratio. WP.No.25101 of 2024 and batch were allowed by this Court on 24.09.2025.
6. The respondent authorities in order to evade honouring the TDRs revised a plan by claiming that the landlords have played fraud on the respondents. It is claimed that the landlords have misquoted the description of the property, resulting in exponential increase in the CARD value.
7. An enquiry was ordered on the premise that the officers of the Municipality and the landlords had manipulated records, and the //5// WP.No.30398 of 2024 respondent authorities had issued TDRs at a higher ratio than the eligible ratio. An enquiry officer was appointed who submitted a preliminary report that the landlords were entitled to TDRs at a 1:2 ratio. Further enquiry was proposed in pursuance of the preliminary report.
8. Aggrieved by the unilateral action on part of the respondent authorities, batch of writ petitions WP.No.18031 of 2022 and batch were filed before this Court, which were disposed off 19.03.2024 directing the 1st respondent as per the oral undertaking of the learned Advocate General, to complete the enquiry after issuance of notices to both the awardees of TDRs and petitioners relating to TDRs in Tanuku Municipality within a period of two months from the day of passing the order.
9. The respondents initiated a fresh inquiry to ascertain the eligibility of TDR bonds and also to ascertain whether the subsequent purchasers were bonafide purchasers or not. The enquiry report dated 10.05.2024 did not conclude on the issue of the status of the subsequent purchasers. On the basis of the enquiry report, the respondents have recalled the TDRs issued earlier and issued fresh TDRs at a 1:2 ratio to the landlords.
10. The enquiry report would indicate that the landlords have mentioned a door number which resulted in escalation of the //6// WP.No.30398 of 2024 cost of the site enormously. It is also stated that a separate investigation is in progress, and it was finally held that the landlords who lost their lands in the master plan for the Garden and Compost yard would be entitled to TDRs at a 1:2 ratio.
11. The committee recommended mentioning the survey number of land acquired instead of the door number specified in TDR, and also reduced the percentage of TDR to a 1:2 ratio.
12. Sri.A.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader, submits that fraud is alleged against the petitioner and other landlords, and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
13. It is also submitted that the landlords have mentioned door numbers instead of survey numbers, resulting in an abnormal increase in the value of land, necessitating the issuance of TDR bonds at a higher ratio. It is also submitted that the lands were purchased vide registered sale deeds within one month of the draft master plan, with a sole motive of executing gift deeds to the Municipality with an eye on the TDR bonds. It is also submitted that the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the State is inquiring into the fraud. The state has, after determining the eligibility of the landlords, rightly cancelled the earlier issued TDR //7// WP.No.30398 of 2024 bonds and reissued the TDR bonds at the eligible ratio to the landlords.
14. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that the sanction of the Government is not required in view of amendment to Rule 168(e) reads as follows ; 168(e) - For the sites required by the Government/ULB for weaker sections or social housing, any other urban infrastructure development such as water supply, sewerage, education, health or any public purpose:
equivalent to 400% of such areas surrendered. However, in case of sites covered by existing slums wherein, ULB proposed for removal and redevelopment of slums with a sanctioned redevelopment plan for the area proposed to surrender in such cases land owners is eligible for 100% of such areas covered by slums. In above such cases the proposal shall be submitted to Government with justification report through the DTCP for approval before considering for issue of TDR.
15. It is also submitted that the state has so far not initiated any action on the alleged illegality, fraud, or misrepresentation by any of the landlords, except for repeatedly harping on the alleged fraud committed by the landlords. It is also submitted that the stand of the state is contrary to the proceedings dated 20.12.2024, whereby the 3rd respondent in categorical terms had held that the lands in question are surrounded by the layouts (LP.No.50/2005, 55/2007, 140/2012, 126/2014, 25/2017, TLP.1172/0014/LP/TKU/2022, 26/2021 and 2/2023) approved by the DTCP and are developing rapidly as a residential area. The 3rd respondent also forwarded the assessment record.
//8// WP.No.30398 of 2024
16. The relevant portion of said proceedings reads as follows ;
The assessment nos. against each door number have been obtained from the Revenue Section of Tanuku Municiipality and the following information is ascertained in the reference 11th cited.
The field inspection disclosed that there are still residential houses, AC sheet sheds denoting that the land has been under residential/commercial use. The land on which these sheds and houses are located, have been given assessment numbers by the Urban Local Body. According to the Revenue note remarks in the 9th cited above, the subject lands fall under the following door Nos.1-14-15/6 (Assessment No.1081019485), 1-25- 5 (Assessment No.1081005197) Door No.1-25-9 (1081005235) and 1-25-11 covered under assessment No.1081005248 and within the respective assessment Nos.these lands are located within the same survey Nos. and mapped in Revenue locality map No.1. A topo-detailed plan has been prepared and submitted herewith. Photographs of the structures situated on the garden zone and covering the field inspection are also attached for ready reference.
The lands in question are surrounded by the layouts (LP Nos.50/2005, 55/, 2007, 140/2012, 126/2014, 25/2017, TLP 1172/0014/LP/TKU/2022, 26/2021 and 2/2023) approved by the DTCP and are developing rapidly as a residential area, with the site is connecting to Tanuku-Bhimavaram Road is within 100 feet. The registrar of Tanuku furnished market value before the lands were handed over to the local body. There is 60' master plan road and existing BT, road is 40'. In view of this, the area has tremendous growth having feasibility for any kind of development (commercial, lease development etc.). The un- official land value of the site is Rs.18 to 20 thousand per square yard. The sites were brought under revenue assessment and door numbers were too allotted. The assessment record is //9// WP.No.30398 of 2024 attached herewith for the kind perusal of the authorities.
Further, the Registrar, Registration & Stamps, Tanuku has been addressed in the reference 14th cited to furnish the conditions under which the land value was fixed at the time of gift of the land and the rule position governing such a cost. In the reference 15th cited, the Registrar furnished detailed information with rule position and the circumstances under which the registration value was assessed, justifying the previous registration value fixed. The market values of the agricultural lands converted into house sites should be calculated applying the rates which are applicable to house sites, according to the Registrar. According to the registration department also, there is healthy growth in this particular area. Further, the Registrar clearly mentioned while addressing Point (a) of the letter 14th cited that "In the recitals of the above registered documents i.e., gift settlement deeds in favour of local bodies, it is commonly mentioned that "the scheduled property is executed in favour of the Tanuku Municipality with the consent of the municipal authority for the public purpose like road, open spaces, parks for approval of master plan without consideration". Here in the recitals of the document, it is establishing that the property is developing to residential plots. And the scheduled property mentioned in the document is meant for roads, parks, open-spaces which is evidencing that it was not a cultivating agricultural land in acres. Hence, it is evident that the schedule property is a site in square yards, hence it cannot be taken in acre for chargeability, but it should be taken in square yards. The reply received from the Registrar is attached herewith.
17. The proceedings dated 20.12.2024 makes it clear that the state has been aiming in the dark without any goal. The purpose and motive of the state are unknown, but the petitioner is subjected //10// WP.No.30398 of 2024 to harassment and hardship. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the essential ingredients of fraud are not proved by the state by their very inaction. The status of the investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau has not been placed before this Court except for submitting that the matter is under investigation with the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
18. Heard the learned senior counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. Perused the material on record.
19. The concept of TDR bonds has evolved, keeping in view the escalating cost of acquisition of land for public purposes and the entanglement in litigation during the course of the acquisition process. TDR allows landowners to transfer unused or additional construction rights from one property to another. These rights are usually issued by municipal authorities to compensate landowners for land acquisition or restrictions on construction. For instance, if a property owner cannot utilise the full development potential of their land due to zoning restrictions, they can transfer the unused rights to another property where higher construction is permitted.
20. The landowners are compensated for surrendering land or adhering to zoning restrictions by receiving TDR //11// WP.No.30398 of 2024 certificates. Developers use TDR to increase FSI and maximise construction on permitted properties. TDR ensures adherence to zoning laws and balances urban planning.
(i) Issuance of TDR Certificates: Municipal authorities issue TDR certificates to landowners as compensation for land surrendered for public infrastructure or other purposes. These certificates indicate the extent of development rights that can be transferred.
(ii) Trading of Rights: Landowners can sell these rights to developers or other property owners who wish to increase the construction potential of their land.
(iii) Utilisation of TDR: Developers utilise TDR to enhance the FSI of their project within the permissible limits set by the local authority.
(iv) Benefits of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Efficient Land Utilisation : Promotes optimal use of land resources in urban areas.
(v) Increased Flexibility: Developers can use TDR to meet specific project requirements.
(vi) Support for Public Projects: Landowners surrendering land for public infrastructure receive fair compensation.
(vii) Urban Development Balance: Facilitates planned and sustainable urban growth.
21. The introduction of TDR bonds has facilitated urbanisation, the development of infrastructure and public facilities, which have a direct impact on the quality of life of an individual. On the facts of the present writ petition, the respondents have issued TDR bonds at the ratio of 1:4. However, on suspicion of the fraud allegedly committed by the landlords, a preliminary inquiry was conducted and that the officers of the Municipality and the landlords connived with each other and executed gift deeds by //12// WP.No.30398 of 2024 mentioning a door number whereas survey number ought to have been mentioned. On this ground, an inquiry was supposedly to be conducted against the landlords for having mentioned the door numbers in the gift deeds. It is the case of the state that, on account of mentioning the door numbers, the value of the property had increased exponentially, and that TDR certificates at a 1:4 ratio were issued.
22. If that be the case, the state ought to have initiated action against the erring officers of the 3rd respondent and others concerned. No such efforts are evidently placed before this Court, except for stating that the Anti-Corruption Bureau has been entrusted to enquire into the involvement of the landlords and the officers. It is not explained what difference it would make if the door number were mentioned instead of the survey number. When the extent of land gifted is in square yards, the survey number would have to be essentially mentioned for identifying the property with the survey number of the relevant village/area. The submission that the door number was mentioned only for increasing the value of the land and seeking TDR bonds at a higher ratio does not sustain the scrutiny of logic.
//13// WP.No.30398 of 2024
23. The submissions with regard to the fraudulent intention of the landlords for purchasing the lands within a period of one month from the proposed master plan cannot be relied upon for any purposes. The necessity of the acquisition of land for public purposes was made known to one and all in the proposed master plan. It cannot be disputed by the state that land was not required for public purposes. The land would have been acquired, and TDR certificates would have to be issued to the landlords on whose names the land stood as on the date of acquisition of the land. That being said, no law prohibits a person from buying any land and gifting it to the Municipality or any Urban Local Body within the same month. The fraud cannot be suspected solely on the basis that the property was purchased and gifted in the same month.
24. This Court considered WP.No.25101 of 2024 and batch filed by the subsequent purchasers of the TDR bonds sold by the landlords. Some other petitioners were builders and this Court found fault with the state in assuming fraud and reassessing the eligibility of TDR bonds therein. The state ought not to have reassessed the eligibility ration of TDR bonds and reduced the entitlement of the landlords from 1:4 to 1:2. The action of the state in cancelling the building permission of the petitioners //14// WP.No.30398 of 2024 therein was also set aside and the TDR bonds which were cancelled were restored for full utilization.
25. In such circumstances, the state ought not to have reassessed the eligibility ratio of TDR bonds and reduced the entitlement of the landlords from 1:4 to 1:2. The impugned memo dated 20.08.2024 and the subsequent TDR issued vide 1081/00043/TDR/KP/2022, Revision -1, dated 29.10.2024 deserve to be set aside, restoring the original TDR issued vide TDR Certificate dated 05.03.2022 bearing TDR. No.1081/00043/TDR/KP/2022. The subsequent sale/purchase of the said TDR would also have to be ratified and honoured by the authorities concerned.
26. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 14.10.2025 KGM //15// WP.No.30398 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION Nos.30398 of 2024 Dated 14.10.2025 KGM