BOYAPATI VIPIN Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is mentioned in the impugned notice issued by the second respondent that in lieu of acquisition of property for road widening, the Government would provide 1:2 TDR bonds, but, so far as the petitioner and other similarly situated persons are concerned, 1:4 TDR bonds are being offered. He also submits that the respondents cannot insist upon or force the petitioner to accept such TDR bonds and that they may be directed to acquire the petitioner's property only after considering his objections/representation, dated 04.09.2017 and by paying compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation appearing for the second respondent submits that the second respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner and other similarly situated persons in exercise of his powers under Section 146 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), as applicable to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. He also submits that final decision can be arrived at by the respondent authorities only after considering the objections raised by the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and thereby, the Writ Petition is premature in nature.