Forest Conviction Can’t Be Undone Merely for Want of Gazette Notification: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction Based on Forest Officer’s Certificate Sale Deed Void Ab Initio If Vendor Has No Title: Andhra Pradesh High Court Affirms That No Better Title Can Be Transferred Than What Vendor Possesses Section 302 IPC | Circumstantial Evidence Must Exclude Every Hypothesis Of Innocence; ‘Fouler Crime, Higher Proof’: Bombay High Court Plaintiff Must Prove Execution of Sale Agreement Under Section 67, Not Just Mark It as Exhibit: Calcutta High Court Section 6 POCSO Act | DNA Evidence & Statutory Presumption Prevail Over Hostile Witnesses and Procedural Lapses: Karnataka High Court Disability Cannot Be Viewed in Isolation from Vocation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation by Assessing Functional Disability at 50% Section 57(A)(6) Bihar State Universities Act | State Cannot Withhold Salaries of Regularized Teachers on Artificial Grounds of Grant Categories: Patna High Court Injured Witness Picked Up Weapons of Assault and Handed Them Over Next Day — Recovery Unnatural and Unbelievable: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal PMLA | Money Laundering Case Cannot Survive After Acceptance of Closure Report in Predicate Offence: Calcutta High Court Mere Living Together Doesn't Create a Composite Family: Andhra Pradesh High Court Overturns Partition Decree, Upholds Validity of Century-Old Sale Deed Bombay High Court Slams Family Court for Dismissing Wife’s Maintenance Claim Over Technicality: ‘Non-Disclosure Not Suppression, Rights Cannot Be Denied’ State Cannot Expect a Private Party to ‘Magically Provide’ Telecom Connectivity Where None Exists: Bombay High Court Remand Is Not Redundancy, But Rectification: Bombay High Court Upholds Return of Suit to Trial Court to Decide Agriculturist Status of Buyer Penile Penetration Is a Possibility: Delhi High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Solely on Credible Child Testimony, Dispenses with Medical or FSL Corroboration Employment Contract Is Not a Commercial Dispute: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea to Reject Suit Over Fiduciary Breaches by Former Director Lok Adalat Cannot Be Used as a Shortcut to Property Transfer Without Auction: Madras High Court Quashes Sale Certificate Issued Without Judicial Sale CBI Cannot Override Court's Authority: No FIR or Chargesheet Without Compliance with Section 195 CrPC: Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Idol Wing’s Former IG A.G. Ponmanickavel Arbitrator Cannot Ignore Signed Documents and Rely on Conjecture: Delhi High Court Upholds Setting Aside of Award in Partnership Dispute Appeals in Execution of Arbitral Awards Not Maintainable Under Commercial Courts Act or Delhi High Court Act: Delhi High Court Clause 4(C) of Model Standing Orders Doesn’t Confer Right to Regularization Without Sanctioned Posts: Bombay High Court Quashes Industrial Court’s Orders Against NMC

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