Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala 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