JUDGMENT : Heard Sri B. S. N. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for Municipal Administration, representing respondent No.1, Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing respondents No.2 to 4. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: “…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned endorsement vide Rc.B.A.No.2472/2015, dated 22.10.2016 issued by the 2nd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to permit the petitioner to construct the building as per the approved plan dated 06.04.2010 and consequential revalidation order dated 25.04.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent and to pass such other order or orders ...” 3. The petitioner Bommadevara Venkata Subbarao claims to have purchased the plot admeasuring 346 sq.yards situated at Old Door No.19-40-19/42 with new Door No.27-37-189 to 191, 27-48-1 situated at Bandar Road, Vijayawada vide registered sale deed bearing document No.3024 of 2013, dated 30.01.2013 from K. Venugopal Rao (in short the ‘vendor’), who was granted renewal building permission for a period of 2 years from 09.04.2013 to 08.04.2015. The petitioner’s vendor K. Venugopal Rao was issued a notice dated 17.11.2014 under Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 for cancellation of the renewal permission on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that prior to applying for renewal permission he had already transferred the property to the writ petitioner. The petitioner, submitted reply dated 23.11.2014 to the notice dated 17.11.2014 issued to his vendor, but the Municipal Commissioner by order dated 17.12.2014 finding the explanation not satisfactory, revoked the revalidation permission granted to K. Venugopal Rao. The petitioner filed W.P.No.18766 of 2015 challenging the order dated 17.12.2014, which was disposed of by this Court on 04.08.2015 directing the petitioner to submit an application for revalidation with direction to the respondent corporation to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner, thereafter, again applied for revalidation, upon which the impugned endorsement dated 22.10.2016 has been passed. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, again applied for revalidation, upon which the impugned endorsement dated 22.10.2016 has been passed. 4. The impugned endorsement, dated 22.10.2016, reads as under: “With reference to above it is to inform to submit proposals through online for granting permission for the construction of the building in the premises of house bearing Door No.27-37-189 to 191 and 27-48-1 as approved in B.A.No.509/2015 dated 07.05.2013 subject to the condition that the applicant shall submit an affidavit Notary and photo affixed on the affidavit stating that no objection to handover required land on free of cost in the event of land required for AMRC for Metro Rail Carridor and shall not claim any compensation.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that any such condition cannot be imposed in granting permission or revalidation of permission which is illegal. 6. He further submits that the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, vide letter dated 29.09.2015 informed the Special Commissioner, AP CRDA, Vijayawada, on the subject of Vijayawada Metro Line Corridor No.1 in Bandar Road, that there is no proposal to route metro corridor between Panavision building (excluding) and Nirmal Hrudaya Bhavan (excluding) on Bandar road. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for that reason as well the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada is not justified in imposing conditions as mentioned in the impugned endorsement. He submits that if in future the petitioner’s property is required for a public purpose, for the same, following due process of law and payment of compensation, would be required, but imposition of such condition at the time of considering the revalidation application is arbitrary. 7. Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing respondents No.2 to 4, submits that since the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of the endorsement dated 22.10.2016, the petitioner’s application for revalidation has not been decided and the same has also not been rejected, which as such is pending. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. By the impugned endorsement, it is evident that the petitioner has been asked to submit proposals through on-line for granting permission for the construction of the building in the subject premises subject to the condition that the petitioner shall submit an affidavit Notary and photo affixed on the affidavit stating that no objection to handover required land on free of cost in the event of land required for AMRC for Metro Rail Corridor and shall not claim any compensation. 10. Learned standing counsel for the Corporation could not justify imposition of any such condition for considering the application for revalidation of the building plan nor could place any statutory provision under which such condition could legally be imposed. 11. Besides, the condition that the petitioner shall submit the affidavit stating ‘no objection’ to handover the required land on ‘free of cost’ for any project, and ‘not to claim any compensation’ is violative of petitioners’ right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 12. In Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v.State of Maharashtra, (2020) 9 SCC 356 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and a human right and in view of such mandate, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. 13. It is apt to refer paras-96 and 97 of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust (supra) as under: “96. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A and a human right as observed by this Court in [Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel, (2008) 4 SCC 649 , para 42]. In view of the mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. The appellant Trust cannot be deprived of its property save in accordance with law.” “97. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India embodies the doctrine of eminent domain which comprises two parts, (i) possession of property in the public interest; and (ii) payment of reasonable compensation. The appellant Trust cannot be deprived of its property save in accordance with law.” “97. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India embodies the doctrine of eminent domain which comprises two parts, (i) possession of property in the public interest; and (ii) payment of reasonable compensation. As held by this Court in a plethora of decisions, including [State of Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh, (2006) 2 SCC 545 at p. 574, para 69 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 355 : 5 SCEC 589] ; [Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596] ; [Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., (1982) 1 SCC 39 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 53], the State possesses the power to take or control the property of the owner for the benefit of public. When, however, a State so acts it is obliged to compensate the injury by making just compensation as held by this Court in [Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555 , paras 55 and 56].” 14. Besides, the letter dated 29.09.2015 issued by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited reads as under: “With reference to above subject, it is to inform you that at present there is no proposal to route metro corridor between Panavision building (excluding) and Nirmal Hrudaya Bhavan (Excluding) on Bunder road. You may please take necessary further action as deemed fit subject to condition that DMRC reserves it’s right to acquire the said property if required in future for Metro project purpose.” 15. From the letter dated 29.09.2015 of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, reproduced above, it is evident that there was no proposal to route metro corridor. 16. As such, the conditions imposed are illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. The Commissioner in issuing the impugned endorsement has acted arbitrarily. 17. In A.P. Dairy Development Corpn. Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy, (2011) 9 SCC 286 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India strikes at arbitrariness as any action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality and violation of rule of law. 18. Para-29 of A.P.Dairy Development Corpn. Federation (supra) is reproduced as under: “29. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. 18. Para-29 of A.P.Dairy Development Corpn. Federation (supra) is reproduced as under: “29. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. This doctrine of arbitrariness is not restricted only to executive actions, but also applies to the legislature. Thus, a party has to satisfy that the action was reasonable, not done in unreasonable manner or capriciously or at pleasure without adequate determining principle, rational, and has been done according to reason or judgment, and certainly does not depend on the will alone. However, the action of the legislature, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, should ordinarily be manifestly arbitrary. There must be a case of substantive unreasonableness in the statute itself for declaring the act ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” 19. The impugned endorsement deserves to be quased. 20. In the result, the impugned endorsement dated 22.10.2016 is hereby quashed, with the direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s application for revalidation of the building permission afresh, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate order, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. 21. The Writ Petition is allowed with costs which is assessed at Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the petitioner, and against 2nd the respondent – the then Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, who passed the impugned order / endorsement, dated 22.10.2016, vide Rc.B.A.No.2472/15. 22. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the 1st respondent – Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi to communicate this judgment to the then Commissioner of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, who passed the impugned order / endorsement, dated 22.10.2016, vide Rc.B.A.No.2472/15, wherever he is now posted and even if retired, and shall ensure compliance. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.