ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “….to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring petitioners land to an extent of Ac.1-13 cents situated in Sy.No.63/8 and 63/15 of Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and laying public road, without acquiring the said land, by promising the petitioners to give equivalent alternative land admeasuring Ac.1-13 cents situated in Sy.No.15/3 and 16 (Town Center Layout, Plot No.4) of Kurmannapalem village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and failing to honour the said commitment and putting the said property to public auction, without paying any compensation or allotting equivalent alternative land in the vicinity or issuing Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) in lieu of the aforesaid land of the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to allot equivalent alternative land in the vicinity or issue Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) in lieu of the aforesaid land of the petitioners or in the alternative to pay compensation in terms of the present law, along with interest and penalty from the date of taking possession i.e., from the year 1998 and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. This Court has heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners as instructed by Sri M.Karthik Pavan Kumar. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Surya Kiran Kumar, learned standing counsel for VMRDA/VUDA, for the main answering respondent (Respondent No.3). 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the acquisition of land measuring Ac.1-13 cents situated in Sy.No.63/8 and 63/15 of Kurmanapalem village and the failure of the respondents to compensate them for the same. They are questioning the action of the respondent, in particular respondent No.3 in laying a public road over the land without payment for the acquisition of the same. They also alleged that the 3rd respondent has reneged on their promise to pay compensation or in the alternative to issue Transferable Development Rights or equivalent land in the vicinity. Hence, the Writ is filed for the above mentioned reliefs. 4. They also alleged that the 3rd respondent has reneged on their promise to pay compensation or in the alternative to issue Transferable Development Rights or equivalent land in the vicinity. Hence, the Writ is filed for the above mentioned reliefs. 4. The main contesting respondent-VMRDA has taken a stand that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this Writ Petition since, according to the VMRDA, this land of Ac.1-13 cents along with other lands purchased by the petitioners was always a road. It is classified as a road poramboke and continues to remain so. It is stated that clandestinely based on some tampering the classification has been changed to ‘ryotwari’ in the records. It is, therefore, submitted that since the subject land is a road and has vested with the Government, the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 5. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, on the other hand, took this court to entire history of the case starting with the acquisition of land by the Government in 1948 for the purpose of establishing a timber factory, the subsequent sale of the property by the liquidator of the State Timber Works in 1958 and the passing of title to the writ petitioners’ predecessors. The subsequent conduct of the 3rd respondent in acquiring the bulk of the land through a consent Award and by virtue of mutual agreements and the subsequent failure of the 3rd respondent to pay compensation or allot alternative land or even TDRs are also highlighted. Learned senior counsel drew the attention of this court to the sequence of events starting from 1950 till the filing of the Writ Petition. He also drew the attention of the court to the conduct of the 3rd respondent in discriminating against the writ petitioners by showing that TDRs were given to other similarly placed persons, while ignoring the claim of the writ petitioners. He points out that time and again the issue was raised and agreed to by VMRDA. However, they always went back on their promises compelling the writ petitioners to file this Writ Petition. Relying upon the documents pertaining to the period prior to the writ and also after the writ, learned senior counsel argues that the action of the respondents is discriminatory and contrary to law. However, they always went back on their promises compelling the writ petitioners to file this Writ Petition. Relying upon the documents pertaining to the period prior to the writ and also after the writ, learned senior counsel argues that the action of the respondents is discriminatory and contrary to law. He submits that as it is an expropriety action by which the petitioners are deprived of the property, this Court should grant relief that is prayed for. 6. Sri Surya Kiran Kumar, learned standing counsel essentially argues about the classification of the road as ‘Road Poramboke’ and points out that on the basis of some dubious and created records the claim is raised by the writ petitioners. He also questions the delay in filing of the writ petition. He reiterates what is essentially stated in his counter affidavit and prays that the writ should be dismissed. COURT:- 7. In order to determine the issues involved in this writ Petition, this court is proposing to go through the events in sequence. i) Since it is admitted by all parties that the entire land in this area was initially acquired for the purpose of establishing the Visakhapatnam Cooperative Metal and Timber Works Limited, Kapparada, Waltair, the said fact is not being looked into in detail. ii) The said timber works went into liquidation. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who was appointed as a liquidator of the said Timber Works Ltd., executed a sale deed in favour of the father of the present writ petitioners on 09.09.1958. By this Registered Sale Deed two bits of land was sold i.e., (a) Land measuring Ac.16-37 cents, which is Item No.1, situated in Kurmannapalem village; (b) land measuring Ac. 7-45 cents, which is Item No.2, situated in Vadalpudi and Kurmannapalem villages, which was acquired (as per the sale deed itself) for the formation of a road leading to the Bell Metal and Timber Factory. This extent consists of various survey numbers and extents. Therefore, it is clear from a reading of the sale deed itself that the properties of an extent of Ac.16-37 cents and Ac.07-45 cents, (acquired for formation of road), were both transferred to the father of the writ petitioners. iii) On 20.11.1986, an agreement was entered between the 3rd respondent and the present writ petitioners. Therefore, it is clear from a reading of the sale deed itself that the properties of an extent of Ac.16-37 cents and Ac.07-45 cents, (acquired for formation of road), were both transferred to the father of the writ petitioners. iii) On 20.11.1986, an agreement was entered between the 3rd respondent and the present writ petitioners. In this agreement, it is mentioned that Ac.32-94 cents of land was notified for land acquisition and Ac.12-91 cents was not yet notified for land acquisition. Thereafter, both the parties negotiated and entered into a compromise for Ac.41- 85 cents of land to be acquired at an agreed rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Rs.30,00,000/- was paid as advance and the balance was to be paid within six months. iv) It was then noticed that land in Sy.No.63/8 and 63/15 measuring Ac.1-13 cents in all was not covered by the agreement. Therefore, a requisition was made by the 3rdrespondent to the District Collector to acquire this land measuring Ac.1-13 cents. Invoking the urgency clause, Draft Notifications under Section 4 were finalized for the land measuring Ac.1-13 cents. v) Requisite publications under Section 17 (4) and Section 5 (a) Notification was published on 26.06.1988. vi) The District Collector appointed the Special Deputy Collector (LA) to perform the functions of the Collector. vii) Thereafter, on 20.07.1998 Award No.18 of 1988 was passed. It is a consent Award. In this award it is clearly mentioned that the tenure of the land in the village is ryotwari and the lands covered by the acquisition are private lands. A large extent of land that is mentioned in the said Award was taken over. It is mentioned clearly that advance possession of about Ac.41-85 cents were taken over pursuant to the agreement between the parties. The other extents of land were also mentioned as taken over. viii) At this stage, it was realized that the bit of land, which is the subject matter of the current dispute, was not included in the concluded agreement. Therefore, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter dated 26.07.1998 asking the writ petitioners to enter into a fresh agreement with regard to Ac.1-13 cents of land. The petitioners conveyed their consent for the same. ix) The matter did not reach a conclusion despite the consensus and was lying unsettled despite the repeated reminders issued by the writ petitioners. Therefore, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter dated 26.07.1998 asking the writ petitioners to enter into a fresh agreement with regard to Ac.1-13 cents of land. The petitioners conveyed their consent for the same. ix) The matter did not reach a conclusion despite the consensus and was lying unsettled despite the repeated reminders issued by the writ petitioners. x) Ultimately, in January, 2010 it was decided by the 3rd respondent that a fresh survey should be conducted of the land measuring Ac. 1-13 cents. The 3rd respondent directed the S.D.M. Estates to enquire into the contention of the individuals (writ petitioners) and to submit a report. This letter was dated 15.09.2012. xi) As the petitioners could not get clear information they made an application under the RTI Act in March, 2013 seeking certain information along with reports. The 3rd respondent gave a reply dated 23.03.2013 along with documents. The report clearly shows that the land measuring Ac.1-13 cents in two survey numbers is covered by a road. The office note enclosed to this clearly shows that the extent of land measuring Ac.0-02 cents and Sy.No.63/8 and an extent of Ac.1-11 cents in Sy.No.63/5 (total Ac.1-13 cents) has not been acquired by the VUDA. Therefore, the VUDA Board directed the formation of committee to decide the modalities of acquisition. The file was directed to be sent to Engineer for their opinion. xii) The matter was still not resolved despite the above and the reminders issued by the petitioners. xiii) The petitioners made further applications under the RTI Act, on 22.08.2013, seeking information on the steps take for giving TDR, compensation etc. They also sought copy of the minutes of the 3rd respondents Board meeting, dated 02.08.2013, which were furnished. A perusal of these minutes reveals that there were large number of claims pending for compensation from the 3rd respondent for the lands covered in the master plan roads. In all 32 applications were pending, of which the writ petitioners claim is also a part. It is admitted that the land measuring Ac.1-13 cents is being used as a road by the Urban Development Authority. The conclusions are that for all pending claims TDRs will be issued to the land losers. In all 32 applications were pending, of which the writ petitioners claim is also a part. It is admitted that the land measuring Ac.1-13 cents is being used as a road by the Urban Development Authority. The conclusions are that for all pending claims TDRs will be issued to the land losers. Even after the filing of the Writ, as no results were achieved another RTI application was made on 24.06.2014 seeking details of the acquisition of the land, which is the subject matter of the dispute. The 3rd respondent clearly stated that the land is not acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The 3rd respondent requested the Tahsildar and others for joint survey that was to be held on 14.08.2019. The said survey was conducted by all the revenue officials and it confirmed that the land Ac.1-13 cents in Kurmannapalem is included in the road. xiv) A further letter dated 17.10.2019 shows that this land measuring Ac.1-13 cents was initially noted in the name of writ petitioners’ father. This extent was also declared before the Land Ceiling Authorities and this extent is declared as non-surplus land also. A further query addressed by the Estate Officer was answered on 19.10.2020 once again stating that the land measuring Ac.1-13 cents belongs to the father of the writ petitioners. 8. This entire sequence of events is described to show that both prior to and after the filing of the writ petition, the stand of the writ petitioners has been consistent. They were asserting title to the land which is also admitted by the respondents. The petitioners were always demanding the 3rd respondent to pay them compensation or issue alternative land or Transferable Development rights. Periodical reminders have been issued and the same are dealt with during the course of the decision when the issue of delay is discussed. The fact, however, remains that this land measuring Ac.1-13 cents in two survey numbers has been lost in the formation of the road. The road is a part of the property that was sold to the writ petitioners’ father by the sale deed of 09.09.1958 in two large bits. The entire land which was acquired for the timber factory and the road was sold to the predecessors in the interest of the writ petitioners. The entire land, thus vested in the hands of the purchasers namely the predecessor of the writ petitioners. 9. The entire land which was acquired for the timber factory and the road was sold to the predecessors in the interest of the writ petitioners. The entire land, thus vested in the hands of the purchasers namely the predecessor of the writ petitioners. 9. The contention of the 3rd respondent that the land is always classified as “road” and wrongly classified as ryotwari is not correct in the opinion of this Court. The overwhelming evidence in this case clearly points out to the fact that the said land of Ac.1-13 cents is a ryotwari private patta land and not Government Land. The respondent-State alleged that the records have been manipulated etc. However, the pleading in the counter affidavit does not make it clear when this alleged manipulation occurred and what action was taken thereafter. In the matters of this nature, the pleading and proof has to be very clear about the alleged manipulation. Simply stating that the action is fraudulent or that the records are manipulated is not enough in the opinion of this Court. No details are also furnished of the manner of the alleged manipulations. The evidence to the contrary is strong and clear. 10. Even more interesting is the fact that bulk of land forming part of the schedule 2 of the sale deed was acquired by the 3rd respondent. This was done by entering into an agreement dated 20.11.1986 which lead to the passing of the consent Award No.18 of 1986. If the land in Schedule-II of the sale deed is a ‘road’ only and is government land, the 3rd respondent should not have acquired the rest of the land under an agreement, resulting in a consent Award. 11. The conduct of the 3rd respondent is thus clearly contradictory. At more than one point of time it got the land surveyed. The surveys always pointed out to the fact that the land measuring Ac.01-13 cents was never acquired but it is clear the land is utilized. No data is, however, furnished nor is any proof filed to show that this bit of land was actually acquired by following the procedure stipulated by law for acquisition of property. The title of the petitioners to the land is clearly established in more than one document. Their right is admitted more than once by the respondents. 12. No data is, however, furnished nor is any proof filed to show that this bit of land was actually acquired by following the procedure stipulated by law for acquisition of property. The title of the petitioners to the land is clearly established in more than one document. Their right is admitted more than once by the respondents. 12. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners are entitled to relief from this Writ Petition. 13. The next question that arises for consideration is that to what reliefs are the petitioners entitled? Admittedly, the land was taken over and utilized without following the process of land acquisition and is being utilized by the VUDA. Reminders that were issued over a period of time, starting from 1988 onwards, did not yield any response. Number of such reminders are filed, including the reminders dt.02.08.2012; 25.12.2012; 26.12.2013; 21.04.2013. Reminders were sent to the Principal Secretary in April, 2013 and also to the Hon’ble Chief Minister in April, 2013 demanding compensation etc. This did not elicit any result. Land users including writ petitioners were invited to meetings to decide the issue in August, 2013 also. Even after the writ was filed, the matter was discussed in the Board meeting of the 3rd respondent in July, 2013, but no firm decision was taken. Documents filed show that other similarly placed parties, whose lands were taken over, were given Transferable Development Rights. In the case of the petitioners, for the reasons best known to the 3rd respondent, no relief has been granted. The Board decided to give 200% TDR and sought the Governments approval at that stage. There is no action after this. Nothing further is disclosed on this aspect. 14. As per the settled law on the subject including the leading judgments of the Vidya Devi v State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 569 land acquisition is an expropriatory legislation. Therefore, it must be very strictly construed. In addition on the question of delay the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vidya Devi case (1 supra) clearly held that when the conscience of the Court is shocked, delay is not of much importance even to set aside a land acquisition Award. In this case the conduct of the respondent does not allow them to plead “DELAY”. In this case the conduct of the respondent does not allow them to plead “DELAY”. In fact in this Court’s opinion there is no “delay” at all which would disentitle the petitioners to relief nor is there an “Award” as per law. 15. In the case on hand, the 3rd respondent entered into an agreement for acquisition of the land, took advance possession and paid Rs.1,00,000/- per acre to the writ petitioners. However, a bit of land measuring Ac.1-13 cents was found to be taken over without being acquired. Fresh proposals are initiated for the acquisition of the land. They did not fructify into an award. Compensation was also not paid. The surveys conducted clearly establish that these two bits of land are lost in the road. The title and the ownership of the writ petitioners to the said land was established by more than one document and in more than one period of time. The fact that the 3rd respondent itself initiated measures to enter into an agreement with the land owners shows that the 3rd respondent was conscious and aware that the writ petitioners are owners of the property. 16. In conclusion, this Court does not find any justification or proof of delay to deny the payment of the compensation etc. Similarly placed persons were granted compensation and/or TDRs. No reason is forthcoming to deny the benefit to the petitioners. This is clear discrimination between similarly placed persons. The Writ was also filed in 2013. The conduct of the respondent in seeking information; suggesting surveys etc., makes it clear that there was never a firm and categorical denial of the petitioners rights. The issue was discussed in the Board Meeting (after the writ was filed also). Therefore, denying relief to the petitioners would amount to putting a premium on the respondents conduct. Their failure to finalise the matter in time even after invoking the urgency clause is crystal clear. The demand for justice is compelling in this case. The judicial conscience of this Court is to say the least shocked. No quietus is reached and yet a plea of delay is raised in a case with a continuing cause of action. 17. Their failure to finalise the matter in time even after invoking the urgency clause is crystal clear. The demand for justice is compelling in this case. The judicial conscience of this Court is to say the least shocked. No quietus is reached and yet a plea of delay is raised in a case with a continuing cause of action. 17. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the 3rd respondent (a) to pay compensation in terms of the current applicable Land Acquisition Act i.e., Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 along with interest and all other benefits from 20.11.1986 (date of agreement) or (b) to issue equivalent alternative land equal in every aspect/all respects to the land acquired or (c) to issue Transferable Development Rights at the current rate as per the prevailing orders i.e., G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.04.2012 on the subject and the amendment by G.O.Ms.No.180, dated 01.10.2020 as it is a road/traffic infrastructure that is developed. 18. In view of the long pendency of this litigation the 3rd respondent is directed to comply with the orders of this Court in letter and spirit within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Consequently, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.