(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing shortfall Intimation No. 1012/011888/2025 Dt.07/10/2025 to the petitioner after execution of gift deed in favor of the 2nd petitioner vide document no.3137/2025 registered at Tirupati Sub- Registrar office and after the satisfactory REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SCRUTNY COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR ISSUANCE OF TDR as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.119 Dt 27/03/2017 and consequently direct the respondents to issue the TDR bonds related to the gift deed executed by the petitioner in favor of the 2nd respondent vide document no.3137/2025 registered at Tirupati Sub-registrar office and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Short fall Intimation No.1012/011888/2025 Dt.07/10/2025 by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the shortfall intimation dated 07.10.2025, whereby the petitioner is called upon to execute a registered gift deed on Non- Judicial Stamp Paper and also to submit a rectified gift deed by rectifying the value of the property and mentioning the residential value for taking further action.

2. It is submitted that the property of the petitioner, measuring 271.27 square meters of land, was required for the purpose of road widening, and the petitioner submitted all the documents as required by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the Scrutiny Committee considered the issue and submitted a report, and the TDR application of the petitioner was verified and also recommended for issuance of TDR. The Scrutiny Committee, consisting of nine (09) officers, has endorsed the recommendations. The Commissioner of the 2nd respondent is one of the signatories to the said report. In pursuance of the said report and clear communication that the petitioner’s application is recommended for issuance of TDR bonds, the petitioner executed a registered gift deed on 25.06.2025.

3. It is submitted that the report of the Scrutiny Committee dated 15.04.2025 was acted upon by the petitioner, and a registered gift deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent, instead of issuing TDR bonds, has now issued a shortfall intimation calling upon the petitioner to rectify the market value. It is also submitted that the Market Value Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar's Office mentions a square yard rate of Rs.78,000/- per square yard and has also considered the value of the building standing at D.No.20-3-5D/2 in Sy.No.699/2A. The Market Value Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar's Office was considered by the petitioner for mentioning it as the value of the property for the purpose of executing the gift deed.

4. It is submitted that apart from the said Market Value Certificate, there is no other basis for the respondents to demand that the petitioner mention any other value and to execute a fresh gift deed.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, on written instructions, submits that the property of the petitioner was required for road widening and in order to issue TDR bonds to the petitioner, the petitioner was called upon to submit the required documents for verification. It is also submitted that the application of the petitioner was placed before the TDR Committee, which examined the case of the petitioner and expressed its willingness to issue TDR bonds to the petitioner for the extent of land gifted. It is also admitted in the written instructions that the petitioner executed a registered gift deed as desired by the 2nd respondent.

6. It is submitted that the gift deed executed by the petitioner has taken into consideration the commercial value of the property, whereas the ground usage of the building is residential in nature and, as such, the petitioner was called upon to execute a rectified gift deed by taking residential value.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Perused the material on record.

8. The Market Value Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar Office has considered the survey number, door number of the subject property, the area where the property is situated, and also considered the square feet value of the standing building and issued the Market Value Certificate.

9. The criteria for arriving at the market value of any property can be broadly classified as location-based factors, market dynamics and infrastructure and utilities. The property of the petitioner is admittedly abutting the main road. These factors were considered by the respondent authorities and also the District Registrar, Tirupathi, while issuing the market value certificate. The market value certificate dated 19.03.2025 also indicates that it is issued to certify the market value of the properties involved, as seen from P4 and P5. The market value certificate (P5) for the same property, dated 21.10.2023, shows a value of Rs. 77,000/- per square yard, and the market value certificate (P4), dated 19.03.2025, shows a value of Rs. 78,000/- per square yard.

10. The potential of the property for putting it to future use, depending on the market dynamics, would also govern the market value of such property. On the facts of this case, the scrutiny committee consisting of nine officers, including the 2nd respondent, has accepted the market value mentioned by the petitioner for the grant of TDR Certificates. The respondents are estopelled from issuing the impugned shortfall notice by calling upon the petitioner to execute a gift deed on Non Judicial Stamp Paper by rectifying the value of the property from commercial to residential. When the property is abutting the main and nothing is produced before this Court to show that the subject area is purely a residential zone, the impugned shortfall notice issued by the 2nd respondent deserves to be set aside.

11. There is no provision for the issuance of two Market Value Certificates for the same building and the same property by considering it as a commercial property and a residential property. The market value of any property must be determined by considering its location. Even if a property is situated on the main road and if it is not put to any use, it is not open for the respondents to claim that the property is of no value, as it is not put to any use.

12. On the facts of the present case, the shortfall notice issued by the 2nd respondent is vague and deserves to be set aside. There shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to comply with the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee and issue TDR bonds to the petitioner for the extent of land gifted within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

13. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.