Dismissed¶33

I.Ramanjaneya Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2025WP/2526/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court, Amaravati; Writ Petition No. 2526/2024; Justice D. Ramesh; decided 03.12.2025; land acquisition/resumption compensation parity; assigned land vs patta holders; Rs 5.50 lakhs vs Rs 4.20 lakhs per acre; balance Rs 1.3 lakhs per acre claimed; Ac 5.00 cents, survey no. 839, Gani Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Nandyal District; possession taken 03-03-2015; Mekala Pandu; Civil Appeal Nos. 7904-7912 (04-08-2014); Article 226; dismissed as infructuous; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Recording learned counsel's submission that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. ¶32

I.Ramanjaneya Reddy Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

APHC010041182024

¶2

[3208]

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2526/2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

I.RAMANJANEYA REDDY, S/O CHINNA LINGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O H.NO.28-1052,127-B, DEVA NAGAR, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 518501

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

THE SUBCOLLECTOR, NANDYALA DISTRICT, NANDYALA ANDHRA PRADESH

¶15

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

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

4.20 lakhs 4 per acre in respect of the petitioner's land of Ac 5.00 cents in survey no. 839 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 all applicable consequential benefits including interest from the date of taking possession on 03-03-2015 and pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.A SRINATH

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23