In a significant ruling upholding citizens’ property rights, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) to issue Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates to a retired couple whose land was taken for road widening more than a decade ago without compensation. Justice N. Harinath delivered the judgment on Thursday, October 30, 2025, disposing of Writ Petition No. 539 of 2021 filed by Dr. D. Subba Rao and his wife, Dr. D. Vijaya Gowri.
Background
The case traces back to 2014 when the petitioners, both residents of Seethammmadara, Visakhapatnam, executed a gift deed for 405 square yards of their property in favour of the GVMC. The land was meant to facilitate road widening and improve public access to nearby residential plots. The couple had initially agreed to the arrangement believing it would aid community development and assumed they would be compensated or issued TDR certificates, as per municipal norms.
However, despite the GVMC using the land and laying the road, no compensation or TDR was ever granted. The couple approached the court after repeated representations in 2019 and 2020 were ignored by the municipal authorities.
Arguments and Submissions
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate M. Kesava Rao contended that while his clients had executed a registered gift deed, it was under the implicit understanding that they would be compensated later.
"The State cannot simply take over private land for public use without paying due compensation," he argued, referring to Article 300-A of the Constitution which safeguards the right to property as a constitutional right.
The petitioners pointed out that the corporation’s conduct was arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They relied on previous rulings, including Bommadevara Venkata Subba Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs Bimal Kumar Shah, where courts held that property owners are entitled to fair compensation even when land is used for public purposes.
The GVMC, represented by standing counsel S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, countered that the couple had voluntarily surrendered the land as a precondition for obtaining building permission and had already benefited from a 3,000 sq. ft constructed area facing the National Highway.
"Having enjoyed these benefits, they cannot now demand compensation," he submitted.
Court's Observations
Justice N. Harinath examined the gift deed and found no clause suggesting that the building permission was conditional upon surrendering land without compensation. The judge noted that both the permission for development and the gift deed were executed around the same time, but the latter made no mention of any waiver of rights.
"The recitals of the gift deed do not indicate that the building permission was sanctioned only on the understanding that the petitioners shall execute a gift deed in favour of the 2nd respondent," the court said, adding that the municipal authorities had misinterpreted the purpose of the document.
The bench stressed that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains a vital constitutional guarantee under Article 300-A.
"The State cannot bulldoze its way in taking over the property of an individual without paying equitable, fair, and just compensation," Justice Harinath remarked.
The court further observed that even if the petitioners had signed any undertaking relinquishing their right to compensation, such a document would be "a nullity in the eye of law," as it would not represent free and conscious consent but compulsion tied to official permissions.
Decision
Concluding that the petitioners had been unfairly deprived of their property, the High Court held the GVMC accountable for its failure to compensate. It directed the municipal corporation to calculate and issue the appropriate TDR certificates to Dr. Subba Rao and Dr. Vijaya Gowri within eight weeks from the receipt of the order.
"The respondents have illegally denied payment of compensation/TDR bonds for the value of the property which was gifted by the petitioners," the bench stated.
With this, the court reaffirmed the enduring protection of property rights against administrative overreach, marking a reminder that voluntary cooperation in civic projects cannot be exploited by public authorities to sidestep lawful compensation.
Case Title: Dr. D. Subba Rao & Anr. vs The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Writ Petition No.: WP No. 539 of 2021
Date of Judgment: 30 October 2025
Counsel for Petitioners: Sri M. Kesava Rao
Counsel for Respondents:
- Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy (Standing Counsel for GVMC)
- Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development
