Devanaboyina Ramakrishna Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

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 issue a Writ or Order or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Mandamus declaring the actions of the Respondents in not paying compensation for the land to be acquired in

¶20

2

¶21

Sy. Nos. 527/1A and 527/1B admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 0.07 and 0.15 cents in Bandar East Village, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District (subject land) and in not considering the representation of the Petitioner dated 22.07.2025 contrary to orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 5826 of 2024 dated 21.03.2024 as being violative to Article 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to consequently, direct the Respondents to pay the compensation for the land to be acquired in Sy. Nos. 527/1A and 527/IB admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 0.07 and 0.15 cents in Bandar East Village, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

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 pleased to direct the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioners from the land in Sy. Nos. 527/1A and 527/IB admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 0.07 and 0.15 cents in Bandar East Village, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District without paying any compensation for such acquisition and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.VENKAT CHALLA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

2.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶29

3

¶30

The Court made the following Order:

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶32

This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondents in not paying compensation for the land to be acquired in Sy.Nos.527/1A and 527/1B admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.07 and

¶33

0.15 cents in Bandar East Village, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District (subject land) and in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 22.07.2025 contrary to the orders of this High Court in W.P. No.5826 of 2024 dated 21.03.2024.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions from the 3^rd respondent dated 18.11.2025 submits that the petitioner did not prove his title over the land to an extent of Ac.0.07 cents in R.S.No.527-1A and Ac.0.05 cents in R.S.No.527-1B of Bandar East.

¶35

In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the written instructions of the 3^rd respondent dated 18.11.2025, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the 3^rd respondent enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his claim to prove the title over the subject land for payment of compensation within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such representation from the petitioner, the

¶36

4

¶37

3^rd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner giving due opportunity, upon verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter. The written instructions of the 3^rd respondent dated 18.11.2025 shall be made as part of the court record.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

_________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶41

27.01.2026 NNN

Devanaboyina Ramakrishna Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devanaboyina Ramakrishna Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rayanki Yashwanth Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mastangari Rangamma Vs the State of Ap

Shaik Zubair Vs the State of Ap

Settippalle Arjun Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rai Thimmappa Vs the State of Ap

Konamakulla Sreenivasulu Vs the State of Ap