D.Hussainaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

D.Hussainaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action in paying only Rs 4.20 lakhs per acre, instead of Rs 5.50 lakhs per acre paid to patta holders for the same acquisition, in respect of the petitioner's resumed land of Ac 5.00 cents in survey no. 735 of Gani Village, is illegal and entitles the petitioner to the balance of Rs.1.3 lakhs per acre with interest from 03-03-2015. (Raised in the prayer; not decided, as the petition was dismissed as infructuous.)

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in the present Writ Petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous; the Court recorded the said submission.

Key takeaways

Recording counsel's submission that the cause does not survive, the Writ Petition is dismissed.ratio¶32
The dismissal is as infructuous, and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶33
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand closed.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition - Compensation parity with patta holders - Writ Petition No. 2519 of 2024 under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to declare illegal the revenue authorities' payment of only Rs 4.20 lakhs per acre to the petitioner, as against Rs 5.50 lakhs per acre paid to patta holders, for his resumed land of Ac 5.00 cents in Sy. No. 735, Gani Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Nandyal District, and to direct payment of the balance Rs.1.3 lakhs per acre with interest from taking of possession on 03-03-2015, relying on the Mekala Pandu ruling of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 7904-7912 dated 04-08-2014 - Before disposal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous - Held (D. Ramesh, J., 03.12.2025): recording the said submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed. No issue decided on merits.

APHC010041332024

[3208]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

WRIT PETITION NO: 2519/2024

Between:

D.HUSSAINAIAH, S/O PAKKIRA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O H.NO.4-9-1, KANALA, KANALA, NANDYALA NANDYALA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE (LAND ACQUISITION), STATE SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYALA DISTRICT, NANDYALA, ANDHRA PRADESH.

THE SUBCOLLECTOR, NANDYALA DISTRICT, NANDYALA ANDHRA PRADESH

THE TAHSILDAR, GADIVEMULA MANDAL, GADIVEMULA, NANDYALA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 topleased to pass an order or direction or Writ, more specifically one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent revenue authorities in not paying compensation of Rs 5.50 lakhs per acre as was paid to patta holders for the same acquisition and instead paying only Rs

2

4.20 lakhs per acre in respect of the petitioner's land of Ac 5.00 cents in survey no. 735 of Gani Village of Gadivemula Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh in respect of the land holding of the petitioners resumed by the respondents as illegal, contrary to the settled law laid down by the honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Mekala Pandu case and as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 7904-7912 dated 04-08-2014 and consequently direct payment of the balance Rs.1.3 lakhs Per acre in respect of the land holding of the petitioner resumed by the respondents with ail applicable consequential benefits including interest from the date of taking possession on 03-03-2015 and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.A SRINATH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE

2.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP)

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION NO: 2519 of 2024

ORDER:

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

that cause in the present Writ Petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous.

Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed

as infructuous. No order as to costs.

As a sequel miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Dt: 03.12.2025 SJ

4

176

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

WRIT PETITION NO: 2519 of 2024

Dt.03.12.2025 sj