Section 138 NI Act | Cheque Bounce Complaint Cannot Be Dismissed At Threshold Merely For Non-Production Of Postal Track Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court Departmental Dismissal Based On Identical Evidence Discarded By Criminal Court Amounts To 'No Evidence': Orissa High Court Kerala Lok Ayukta Amendment Upheld: High Court Rules Lok Ayukta Is Not A Court, Its Declaration Can Be Changed To Recommendation Subsidized Industrial Plots Are Meant To Generate Employment, Allottees Must Strictly Adhere To Timebound Project Schedules: Supreme Court Allottees Cannot Keep Subsidised Land Unutilised: Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation Of Piaggio's UP Industrial Plot CAG Audit Cannot Substitute Criminal Investigation To Trace Money Trails: Supreme Court Supreme Court Directs CBI To Probe Arunachal Pradesh Public Contracts, Says Constitutional Violation Not Diluted By Statistics Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC Cannot Be Presumed Merely Because Multiple Accused Participated In A Sudden Fight: Supreme Court Mere Use Of Abusive Word 'Bastard' Does Not Amount To Obscenity Under Section 294(b) IPC: Supreme Court Independent Medical Board's Opinion Crucial To Prevent Harassment Of Doctors In Consent Disputes: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case High Court Can Examine Questions Of Fact Under Section 482 CrPC To Prevent Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Surgeon 'Every Link Must Be Conclusively Established': Supreme Court Acquits Constable In Murder Case, Reiterates Strict Standard For Circumstantial Evidence Murder Conviction Cannot Rest Solely On Voice Identification In Darkness: Supreme Court Acquits Police Constable After 12 Years CCTV Footage Belies Assault Claims: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Neighbours Karta Cannot Gift Entire Joint Family Property To One Coparcener Without Consent; Settlement Void Ab Initio: Madras High Court Fresh Application For Return Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata Despite Favourable Supreme Court Ruling On Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Registration Of Adoption Deed Not Mandatory For Compassionate Appointment Under Hindu Adoptions Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Company Cannot Claim Contributory Negligence Without Examining Driver Or Challenging Charge Sheet: AP High Court Accused In Child Pornography Cases Cannot Be Discharged Merely Because Age Of Unidentified Victims Cannot Be Conclusively Proved: Delhi High Court Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court 138 NI Act | Signing Board Resolution Doesn't Make Director Liable For Cheque Bounce: Supreme Court Written Reply To Show Cause Notice Sufficient, No Right To Personal Hearing For Borrowers Before Fraud Classification: Supreme Court Upholds RBI Master Directions Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Gated Community Association Cannot Exclude LIG/EWS Allottees, Single Unified Society Mandatory: Telangana High Court

Gift or Grab?”: Andhra Pradesh High Court Holds State Cannot Seize Land Under Guise of Voluntary Gift Without Fair Compensation

01 November 2025 10:03 AM

By: sayum


“Right to Property Still a Constitutional Guarantee—Gift Deed Executed for Road Widening Does Not Waive Right to TDR or Compensation”: In a significant verdict reaffirming the sanctity of Article 300-A of the Constitution, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that land taken for a public purpose—even if via a registered gift deed—cannot be used to deny the landowner compensation or Transferable Development Rights (TDR), unless there is clear, voluntary, and lawful waiver of that right.

Justice Harinath. N directed the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) to issue TDR certificates to the petitioners for 405 square yards of land taken from them for road widening in 2014.

“The State cannot bulldoze its way in taking over the property of an individual without paying equitable, fair, justifiable and adequate compensation.” [Para 16]

“Gift by Compulsion is No Gift at Law” – Gift Deed Conditioned on Building Permission Held Invalid for Denying Compensation

The GVMC had argued that the land was “voluntarily gifted” by the petitioners as a pre-condition to obtain building permission, and hence no compensation or TDR was due. The Court, however, found this defence untenable:

“There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners executed the gift deed in lieu of development permission... Even if such a document exists, it would be a nullity, as the petitioners were compelled to execute it for obtaining official sanction.” [Para 17]

The Court clarified that voluntariness is the cornerstone of a valid gift, and when such deeds are extracted in exchange for statutory permissions, they are not truly voluntary and cannot be used to defeat constitutional protections.

“Article 300-A Not a Dead Letter”—Land Cannot Be Taken Without Due Process and Compensation

Although the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, the Court strongly reiterated that it remains a constitutional right under Article 300-A, and any deprivation must follow due process and entail fair compensation.

“Even if the property was gifted, it was still taken for a public purpose—road widening—and hence, the petitioners are entitled to compensation or TDR in accordance with law.” [Para 14, 16]

The Court noted that respondents laid the road after taking possession of the land, and no part of the gift deed or the building permission order showed that the petitioners had consciously and lawfully waived their right to compensation.

“Constructed Area is Irrelevant—Loss of Land Must Be Compensated”

The GVMC also contended that the petitioners had already received 3000 sq. ft. of built-up area in the apartment project as part of the development arrangement, and hence could not seek further compensation.

This argument was flatly rejected:

“The extent of constructed area that fell to the petitioners’ share is completely unconnected and detachable from their rightful claim for compensation or TDR.” [Para 19]

The Court clarified that private benefits under a development agreement do not absolve the State from compensating for land taken for public purposes.

Reliance on Precedents: Gift Deeds and Affidavits Cannot Override Constitutional Safeguards

Citing its own earlier decision in Bommadevara Venkata Subba Rao v. State of A.P. and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, the Court held:

“The condition of not claiming any compensation is violative of the petitioners’ right to property under Article 300-A.” [Paras 9–10]

Both judgments affirm the principle that even a signed affidavit or undertaking cannot waive the constitutional right to compensation, especially when executed under official pressure or as a pre-condition to permissions.

TDR Certificates to Be Issued Within 8 Weeks

Holding the GVMC’s actions to be arbitrary and violative of constitutional rights, the Court allowed the writ petition and issued clear directions:

“The 2nd respondent is directed to calculate the TDR certificate(s) eligibility of the petitioners for the land gifted and issue the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.” [Para 20]

No costs were awarded, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were disposed of.

Date of Judgment: 30 October 2025

 

Latest Legal News