Date of reserved for orders : 30.07.2026

Date of pronouncement : 08.09.2026

Date of uploading : 08.09.2026

APHC010253722026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3457]

TUESDAY, THE 8

th

DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

WRIT PETITION NO: 13409, 13413, 13415, 13417, 13420, 13422, 13423,

13426 of 2026

WP.No.13409 of 2026

Between:

1. MUDDULURU CHANDRA MOHAN RAJU, S/O M. VENKATA SUBBA

RAJU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 7 -612/4, R.S. ROAD,

KODURU, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516101.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522237

2. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF TIRUPATI, REP. BY ITS

COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 or more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the

action of the Respondents in laying the road over an extent of 45.03 Sq. Mts.

(53.83 Sq.Yards) in Sy. No. 165/2 of KonkachennaiguntaVillage, Tirupati

without following due process of law and without payment of u compensation

and compelling the petitioner to give consent to surrender the land at the rate

of Rs. 17,000/- persq. yard as fixed by them, as arbitrary, illegal and without

jurisdiction and in violation of Article 300 A of the constitution of India and

consequently direct the Respondents to redeliver the possession of Subject

land admeasuring 45.03 Sq. Mts. (53.83 Sq.Yards) in Sy. No. 165/2 of

Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati or alternatively to initiate land acquisition

proceedings and pay proper compensation in accordance with Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 to initiate land acquisition proceedings in

respect of land admeasuring 45.03 Sq. Mts. (53.83 Sq.Yards) in Sy. No.

2

165/2 of Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati in accordance with Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to

pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. GALLA SUDARSANA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

region In

2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

WP.No.13413 of 2026

Between:

1. S JYOTHEESWARI, W/O A SRINIVASULU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

R/O D NO 7-612/2, R. S ROAD, KODURU, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT,

A.P -516 101 ...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF TIRUPATI, REP. BY ITS

COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 or more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the

action of the Respondents in laying the road over an extent of 82.32 Sq. Mts.

in Sy. No. 165/2 of Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati without following due

process of law and without payment of compensation and compelling the

petitioner to give consent to surrender the land at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per

sq. yard as fixed by them, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and in

violation of Article 300 A of the constitution of India and consequently direct

the Respondents to redeliver the possession of Subject land admeasuring

82.32 Sq. Mts. in Sy. No. 165/2 of Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati or

alternatively to initiate land acquisition proceedings and pay proper

compensation in accordance with Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 to initiate land acquisition proceedings in

respect of land admeasuring 82.32 Sq. Mts. in Sy. No. 165/2 of

Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati in accordance with Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

3

Resettlement Act, 2013 pending the above writ petition pending disposal of

the above writ petition and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. GALLA SUDARSANA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

region In

2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

WP.No.13415 of 2026

Between:

1. MUDDULURU BHARATHI, W/O M CHANDRA MOHAN RAJU AGED

ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O DNO 7/612/4, R. S. ROAD KODURU,

ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT, A. P- 516 101

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522238.

2. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF TIRUPATI, REP. BY ITS

COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,

more particularly one or more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the

action of the Respondents in laying the road over an extent of 88.28 Sq. Mts.

in Sy. No. 165/2 of Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati without following due

process of law and without payment of compensation and compelling the

petitioner to give consent to surrender the land at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per

sq. yard as fixed by them, as arbitrary. illegal and without jurisdiction and in

violation of Article 300 A of the constitution of India and consequently direct

the Respondents to redeliver the possession of Subject land admeasuring

88.28 Sq. Mts. in Sy. No. 165/2 of Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati or

alternatively to initiate land acquisition proceedings and pay proper

compensation in accordance with Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

and to pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 to initiate land acquisition

proceedings in respect of land admeasuring 88.28 Sq. Mts. in Sy. No. 165/2

of Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati in accordance with Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

4

Resettlement Act, 2013 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to

pass such

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. GALLA SUDARSANA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

region In

2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

WP.No.13417 of 2026

Between:

1. ADLURI SAI JISHNU, S/O A SRINIVASULU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

R/O D NO 7/612/2, R S ROAD, KODURU ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT A. P

-516 101

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, ARNARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF TIRUPATI, REP. BY ITS

COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH -517501.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 or more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the

action of the Respondents in laying the road over an extent of 150.97 Sq.

Mts. in Sy. No. 165/2 of Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati without

following due process of saw and without payment of compensation and

compelling the petitioner to give consent to surrender the land at the rate of

Rs.17,000/- per sq. yard as fixed by them, as arbitrary, illegal and without

jurisdiction and in violation of Article 300 A of the _constitution of India and

consequently direct the Respondents to redeliver the possession of Subject

land admeasuring 150.97 Sq. Mts. in Sy. No. 165/2 of Konkachennaigunta

Village, Tirupati or alternatively to initiate land acquisition proceedings and

pay proper compensation in accordance with Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 to initiate land acquisition proceedings in

respect of land admeasuring 150.97 Sq. Mts. in Sy. No. 165/2 of

Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati in accordance with Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

5

Resettlement Act, 2013 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to

pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. GALLA SUDARSANA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

region In

2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

WP.No.13420 of 2026

Between:

1. MUDDULURU CHANDRA MOHAN RAJU, S/O M VENKATA SUBBA

RAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O D NO 7/612/4, R S ROAD,

KODURU, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT, A.P -516 101

2. ADLURI SRINIVASULU, S/O NAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

R/O D NO 7/612/4, R S ROAD, KODURU, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT, A.

P -516 101

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF TIRUPATI, REP. BY ITS

COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 or more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the

action of the u Respondents in laying the road over an extent of 129.93 Sq.

Mts. in Sy. No. 165/2 of Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati Without

following due process of law and without payment of compensation and

compelling the petitioner to give consent to surrender the land at the rate of

Rs.17,000/- persq. yard as fixed by them, as arbitrary. illegal and without

jurisdiction and in violation of Article 300 A of the constitution of India and

consequently direct the Respondents to redeliver the possession of Subject

land admeasuring 129.93 Sq. Mts. in Sy. No. 165/2 of Konkachennaigunta

Village, Tirupati or alternatively to initiate land acquisition proceedings and

pay proper compensation in accordance with Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 to initiate land acquisition proceedings in

6

respect of land admeasuring 129.93 Sq. Mts. in Sy. No. 165/2 of

Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati in accordance with Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to

pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. GALLA SUDARSANA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

region In

2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

WP.No.13422/2026

Between:

1. C VASUDHA, W/O S CHENGAL RAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O

D NO 20-3-315/J, SIVA JYOTHI NAGAR, TIRUPATI A. P -517501

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF TIRUPATI, REP. BY ITS

COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,

more particularly one or more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the

action of the Respondents in laying the road over an extent 77.12 in Sy. No.

165/2 of Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati without following due process of

law and without payment of compensation and compelling the petitioner to

give consent to surrender the land at the rate of Rs. 17,000/- per sq. yard as

fixed by them, as arbitrary illegal and without jurisdiction and in violation of

Article 300 A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the

Respondents to redeliver the possession of Subject land admeasuring 45.03

Sq. Mts. (53.83 Sq.Yards) in Sy. No. 165/2 of Konkachennaigunta Village,

Tirupati or alternatively to initiate land acquisition proceedings and pay proper

compensation in accordance with Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

and to pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 to initiate land acquisition

proceedings in respect of land admeasuring 45.03 Sq. Mts. (53.83 Sq.Yards)

7

in Sy. No. 165/2 of Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati in accordance with

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ending disposal of the above writ

petition and to pass such

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. GALLA SUDARSANA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

region In

2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

WP.No.13423 of 2026

Between:

1. KEERTHIPATI SANKARA RAJU, S/O K RAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 64

YEARS, R/O FLAT NO 203, KENNADY NAGAR, V N R PLAZA,

TIRUPATI, A.P 517 501

2. KEERTHIPATI CHANDRA SHEKHAR RAJU, S/O K RAMARAJU AGED

ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O D/NO 4 -10, B. P RACHAPALLI,

BOMMAVARAM, ANNAM AYYA DISTRICT, A. P 516110

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF TIRUPATI, REP. BY ITS

COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH -517501.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,

more particularly one or more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the

action of the Respondents in laying the road over an extent of 153.21 Sq. Mts.

in Sy. No. 165/2 of Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati without following due

process of law and without payment of compensation and compelling the

petitioner to give consent to surrender the land at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per

sq. yard as fixed by them, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and in

violation of Article 300 A of the constitution of India and consequently direct

the Respondents to redeliver the possession of Subject land admeasuring

153.21 Sq. Mts. in Sy. No. 165/2 of Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati or

alternatively to initiate land acquisition proceedings and pay proper

compensation in accordance with Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

and to pass such

8

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 to initiate land acquisition

proceedings in respect of land admeasuring 153.21 Sq. Mts. in Sy. No. 165/2

of Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati in accordance with Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to

pass such

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. GALLA SUDARSANA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

region In

2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

WP.No.13426 of 2026

Between:

1. DASARAJU LEELAVATHI, W/O DASARAJU BHARANI KUMAR AGED

ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O D NO 203151W3, SIVA JYOTHI NAGAR

10TH CROSS, TIRUPATI TOWN TIRUPATI DISTRICT A P 517501

2. MUDDULURU BHARATHI, W/O M VENKATESWARULU AGED

ABOUT 48 YEARS RIO D NO 20-3-135/J, 2ND FLOOR SIVA JYOTHI

NAGAR, 10TH CROSS TIRUPATI TOWN, A. P 517501

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIA T,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF TIRUPATI, REP. BY ITS

COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH -517501.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 l appropriate writ, order or direction, more

particularly one or more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the

action of the Respondents in laying the road over an extent of 361.20Sq. Mts.

(53.83 Sq.Yards) in Sy. No. 165/2 of Konkachennaigunta Village, STirupati

without following due process of law and without payment of compensation

and compelling the petitioner to give consent to surrender the land at the rate

of Rs.17,000/- per sq. yard as fixed by them, as arbitrary, illegal and without

jurisdiction and in violation of Article 300 A of the constitution of India and

consequently direct the Respondents to redeliver the possession of Subject

land admeasuring 361.20Sq. Mts. in Sy. No. 165/2 of Konkachennaigunta

Village, Tirupati or alternatively to initiate land acquisition proceedings and

9

pay proper compensation in accordance with Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 to initiate land acquisition proceedings in

respect of land admeasuring 361.20Sq. Mts. in Sy. No. 165/2 of

Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati in accordance with Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to

pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. GALLA SUDARSANA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

region In

2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

The Court made the following:

10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

WRIT PETITION Nos. 13409, 13413, 13415, 13417, 13420, 13422, 13423

and 13426 of 2026

COMMON ORDER :

1. The batch of writ petitions are filed by the property owners whose

property was taken over by the respondent corporation for formation of

100 feet Masterplan road from Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati and

seek a declaration of the action of the respondents in laying the road

over the petitioners’ property and compelling the petitioners to give

consent for surrendering their land @ Rs.17,000/- per square yard and

a consequential direction to deliver the possession of the petitioners’

extent of property or to initiate land acquisition proceedings for payment

of proper compensation in accordance with the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. Sri.Ghanta Rama Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners, submits that the petitioners’ property is abutting the road

and the said road was proposed to be widened as a 100 -feet

Masterplan road. All the petitioners executed registered gift deeds in

favour of the respondent-corporation, as desired by the respondent-

corporation, for the grant of TDR Certificates.

3. It is submitted that though the petitioners executed registered gift deeds

and the respondent-corporation had laid the road, the respondent

corporation failed to issue the TDR Certificates as promised. Aggrieved

11

by the inaction on the part of the respondent corporation in issuing the

TDR bonds, the petitioners filed a batch of writ petitions which this Court

disposed of by recording the contention of the respondent Municipality

that the grievances of the petitioner were adequately being addressed

by placing the claim of the petitioners before the scrutiny committee.

Recording the submissions, the learned single Judge of this Court

disposed of the batch of writ petitions, directing the 2

nd

respondent to

place the file of the petitioner(s) before the scrutiny committee and also

directed the respondents to consider for issuance of TDR bonds within

a period of two months.

4. It is submitted that the respondent authorities did not comply with the

orders of this Court and, as such, contempt cases were filed. After filing

of the contempt cases, the 2

nd

respondent issued the impugned

proceedings. As the 2nd respondent passed speaking orders, this Court

closed the contempt cases.

5. It is submitted that the 2

nd

respondent has issued the impugned

proceedings by stating that the scrutiny committee has approved the

claim of the petitioners and the 2

nd

respondent had unilaterally fixed the

market value with effect from 01.06.2023 @ Rs.17,000/- per square

yard and thus inform the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled for

TDR bonds for the extent of land surrendered by calculating the value

@ Rs.17,000/- per square yard.

12

6. The learned senior counsel further submits that the 2

nd

respondent

ought to have initiated appropriate proceedings for acquisition of the

petitioners’ properties; however, it had, in a highhanded manner, taken

over the petitioners’ properties for the purpose of laying a road by

promising to issue TDR bonds. It is submitted that the square-yard rate

as on the date of execution of the registered gift deeds by the

petitioners was Rs. 37,000/- per square yard. It is submitted that the

registered gift deed would also refer to the value of the property at

Rs.37,000/- per square yard.

7. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to TDR bonds @

Rs.37,000/- per square yard and not at Rs.17,000/- per square yard as

unilaterally determined by the 2

nd

respondent. It is submitted that the

market value certificate issued by the competent Sub-Registrar for the

petitioners’ property as on 06.07.2023 is for Rs. 37,000/- per square

yard. The market value of the property as on 17.10.2025 is shown as

Rs. 17,000/- per square yard, and as on 19.01.2026, it is shown as Rs.

45,000/- per square yard. The learned senior counsel submits that the

market value certificates issued by the competent authority are filed

along with a memo dated 07.05.2026.

8. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 2

nd

respondent filed a

counter. It is stated that the scrutiny committee had determined the

entitlement of the petitioners for TDR rights at Rs.17,000/- per square

yard and, as such, the petitioners were called upon to execute and

13

submit a revised/rectified gift settlement deed (s) duly reflecting the

market value as Rs.17,000/- per square yard.

9. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioners was placed before the

scrutiny committee as directed by this Court, and the scrutiny committee

had determined the applicable market value for issuance of TDR bonds

by considering Rs.17,000/- as market value per square yard.

10. It is also submitted that the petitioners, while executing the registered

gift deed, mentioned the nearest door number to their property, which

was classified as a commercial property. By mentioning the nearest

door numbers, the petitioners’ residential property cannot be considered

a commercial property for the issuance of TDR bonds at Rs. 37,000/-

per square yard. It is stated that the petitioners have mentioned the

value of the property at Rs. 37,000/- per square yard in the registered

gift deeds, with reference to commercial properties. It is also submitted

that, as on date, the prevailing market value of a commercial property is

Rs.45,000/- per square yard, and the value of a residential property in

the said area is about Rs.17,000/- per square yard.

11. It is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of TDR

bonds at Rs.37,000/- per square yard. The 2

nd

respondent has filed a

common counter stating that the value of the subject property would

have to be dealt as a residential property only and that the value of a

residential property in the said area is about Rs.21,000/- per square

yard as for the year 2025 and it is value at Rs.17,000/- for the year 2023

14

and commercial value per square yard for the year 2023 is Rs.37,000/-

per square yard and the same is Rs.45,000/- for the year 2025.

12. In reply, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that the counter filed by the respondents refers to the Google

pictures of the subject property and the petitioners’ property is shown as

vacant land abutting the main road. The door number mentioned by the

petitioners is that of a property located away from the petitioners’

property. It is submitted that the Sub-Registrar could not have classified

any property for valuation as residential or commercial, and that the

correspondence dated 20.07.2026 was addressed by the Joint Sub-

Registrar – 1, Tirupati to the Commissioner of Tirupati Municipal

Corporation. It is submitted that the respondents cannot deny the

petitioners their entitlement to TDR bonds at Rs. 37,000/- per square

yard.

13. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the

learned standing counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the material

on record.

14. The petitioners have surrendered their lands for laying of road. The

petitioners have also executed registered gift deeds as desired by the

respondent corporation to facilitate the laying of the 100-foot Masterplan

road. The respondent corporation could not have taken over the

petitioners’ properties without paying any compensation and without

resorting to acquisition proceedings. This Court has considered several

15

writ petitions where the property owners holding small extents of land

were either convinced or coerced into surrendering their properties for

public purposes. This Court has come to the rescue of such property

owners and directed payment of compensation for the land acquired, or

considered the property owners' claims and directed issuance of TDR

Certificates.

15. On the facts of this case, the petitioners have surrendered their lands,

executed registered gift deeds, the respondent-corporation had laid the

road and denied issuing TDR bonds to the petitioners.

16. The record also reveals that the petitioners have filed writ petitions

seeking direction from this Court to the respondent authorities to issue

TDR bonds. It is also evident that the respondent-corporation had

submitted before this Court that the petitioners' claim was placed before

the scrutiny committee for consideration of the issuance of TDR bonds,

and the writ petitions were closed with the observation that the scrutiny

committee's examination of the petitioners' claim shall be undertaken.

Accordingly, the respondents are required to consider issuance of TDR

bonds.

17. The 2

nd

respondent has issued the impugned proceedings by

determining the market value at Rs.17,000/- per square yard and further

stating that the claim of the petitioners for issuance of TDR certificates

was approved; however, the market value for the petitioners’ property

was fixed at Rs.17,000/- per square yard.

16

18. Admittedly, the Google map filed by the 2

nd

respondent along with the

counter amply clears the ambiguity about the location of the petitioners’

properties. The petitioners’ properties are evidently abutting the main

road. The door number specified by the petitioners in the registered gift

deeds refers to a property situated away from the main road. The

market value certificates issued by the competent Sub-Registrar dated

06.07.2023 at Rs.37,000/- per square yard, 17.10.2025 at Rs.17,000/-

per square yard, and 19.01.2026 at Rs.45,000/- per square yard do not

refer to the classification of the properties as residential, commercial,

semi-residential, or semi-commercial.

19. When the properties of the petitioners are abutting the main road, they

could be put to either commercial, residential, semi-commercial or semi-

residential use. The property as on the date of execution of the

registered gift deeds by the petitioners was a vacant site. It could have

been put to residential or commercial use subject to obtaining

necessary approvals from the 2

nd

respondent. The classification of the

petitioners’ property as residential and the unilateral determination of

the market value at Rs. 17,000/- per square yard do not withstand the

scrutiny of law and logic. As on the date of execution of the registered

gift deed the value of the property was determined and considered as

Rs.37,000/- per square yard. As such, the petitioners are entitled to

issuance of TDR bonds at Rs.37,000/- per square yard and the

17

impugned proceedings are hereby modified to the extent of entitling the

petitioners to grant of TDR bonds at Rs.37,000/- per square yard.

20. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of, directing the 2

nd

respondent to issue the TDR bonds to the petitioners for the extent of

their properties which were taken over by the 2

nd

respondent for laying

of 100 feet Masterplan road from Konkachennaigunta Village, Tirupati.

The respondents shall have to issue TDR bonds as directed by this

Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this

order. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

____________________

JUSTICE HARINATH.N

Dated 08.09.2026

KGM

Whether the order is:

Speaking Reasoned ☑

Reportable Non-reportable ☑

18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

WRIT PETITION Nos. 13409, 13413, 13415, 13417, 13420, 13422, 13423

and 13426 of 2026

Dated 08.09.2026

KGM