Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

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