Disposed

Bayanaboina Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Mar 2026WP/32922/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Displaced persons whose lands were acquired for Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Reservoir sought employment under the displacement quota in G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986. The court held that a 1987 Memo relaxed the one-year application condition, so the State's limitation objection failed, and directed consideration on par with similarly placed applicants.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bayanaboina Suresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3208]

¶2

APHC010638742023

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 32922/2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

BAYANABOINA SURESH, S/O B LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO. 3/54, BASAVAPURAM VILLAGE, MYDUKUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶10

SARE MAHESWARI,, S/O S. OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. REKALAKUNTA, B.MATTAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶11

PEDDAPOTHU BRAHMA NAYUDU,, S/O P. VENGAMANAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC. UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO. 7/28, BAGYANAGAR, NANDYALAMPETA, MYDUKUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶12

BAYANA BOINAGURAIAH,, S/O B.GURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. Z.KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, B.MATTAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶13

MAJJARI CHENNA KESAVA,, S/O M NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC. UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO. 2-81E, CHENNAMPALLEGRAMAM, BADVEL MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶14

MALEPATI VENKATA NAGENDRA NATH ALIAS MALEPATI V N NADHA, S/O. M C VENAKTA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. REKALAKUNTA, B.MATTAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶15

ANAKARLA JAYAPAL,, S/O A RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O Z.KOTHAPOALLI VILLAGE, B.MATTAM

¶16

MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶17

BANGI ALIAS NAGIPOGU AGUSTEEN,, S/O N BALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O REKALAKUNTA VILLAGE, B.MATTAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶18

VANGA POLAIAH,, S/O V POLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O GOPIREDDY PALLI, D.NELATUR, B.MATTAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶19

...PETITIONER(S)

¶20

AND

¶21

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETAIY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶22

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NTR TGP CIRCLE, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶23

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

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 a Writ, Order or Orders or Directions more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not providing appointment/employment to the petitioner under the displacement quota per G.O.Ms.No.98, I and (PW) as Department, dated 15.04.1986 despite the applications submitted despite the lands acquired and award passed year of 1984-1989 by the project authorities as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional contrary to the orders passed in WP No. 2436/2011 dated 08.02.2011 (Division Bench) as confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 14305/2011 dated 04.07.2011, apart from violative of article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to provide the employment to the petitioner in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.98, I and (PW) Department, dated 15.04.1986 and pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶27

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 For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit this HonTole Court may

¶28

be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for employment under the displacement quota as per G.O.Ms.No.98, I86{PW) Department, dated 15.04.1986 as done in the similar situated persons pending disposal of the above Writ petition and in the interest of petitioners and pass such

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶30

1.CHUKKA KRANTHI KIRAN

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶32

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶33

2.GP FOR SERVICES III

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶37

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Orders or Directions more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not providing appointment/employment to the petitioner under the displacement quota per G.O.Ms.No.98, I and (PW) as Department, dated 15.04.1986 despite the applications submitted despite the lands acquired and award passed year of 1984-1989 by the project authorities as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional contrary to the orders passed in WP No. 2436/2011 dated 08.02.2011 (Division Bench) as confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 14305/2011 dated 04.07.2011, apart from violative of article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to provide the employment to the petitioner in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.98, I and (PW) Department, dated 15.04.1986 and pass…”

¶38

Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri K.Bheema Rao, learned GP for Services-III.

¶39

All the petitioners are family members of the displaced persons under Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Reservoir in short called as SPVBR. It is their submission that their lands were acquired by the competent authority for the purpose of construction of the said SPVBR. The Government formulated a scheme by issuing G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (PROJ.WING) Department, dated 15.04.1986 in order to provide rehabilitation to the members of the displaced persons or their dependents, whose lands were acquired for the

¶40

purpose of irrigation projects. The petitioners would contend that they are all members of the displaced family, since their lands were acquired. However, despite years of waiting, they did not get any employment, though the names of the petitioners were shown in the list of the eligible candidates under the category of displaced persons for the purpose of construction of the said SPVBR.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that some of similarly situated persons have approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and filed O.A.No.9807 of 2009. The Tribunal passed orders on 21.08.2009 directing the respondents to consider the case of those applicants.

¶42

As seen from the above G.O., 50 % of the vacancies of the categories equivalent to Junior Assistants / Typists and the cadres below arising in Major & Medium Irrigation and Power Projects shall be filled up by the displaced families or their dependants. The candidates eligible for appointment under this schedule shall be the displaced persons or his/her, son/daughter or spouse there being no other earning member in the family.

¶43

Initially, by virtue of the said G.O., the eligible candidates shall make applications to the concerned District Collector within a period of one year from the date of the actual displacement of the family. Subsequently, the said condition was removed by issuing a Memo No.480-LAR(2)87/2, dated 24.08.1987. By virtue of the said Memo, the condition of making applications

¶44

within a period of one year has been relaxed. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are also eligible for the same relief on par with G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 and also in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.9807 of 2009, dated 21.08.2009.

¶45

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader opposed and stated that the petitioners have approached the authorities concerned belatedly, as such, they are not entitled for the relief as claimed by them. He further contended that the respondents are not considering to receive the applications of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners belatedly approached them and those applications are barred by limitation. He also contended that though the lands of the petitioners were acquired during the year 1987 and earlier, they were actually displaced when the projects commenced operating and when the water entered into their lands. As such, the petitioners ought to have made applications within a period of one year from the date of actual displacement.

¶46

As stated earlier, after issuing G.O.Ms.No.98, the condition of making applications within a period of one year has been relaxed through Memo No.480-LAR(2)87/2, dated 24.08.1987. In such circumstances, the cut-off date pleaded by the learned Government Pleader cannot be sustained.

¶47

In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of , directing the respondents, more particularly, 2^nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 and also on par with the order of the Tribunal in O.A.9807 of 2009, dated 21.08.2009. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months thereafter. No costs.

¶48

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶49

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶50

JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶51

Date: 02.03.2026 M K K

¶52

256

¶53

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶54

WRIT PETITION No.32922 of 2023

¶55

Dated: 02.03.2026

¶56

M K K

Bayanaboina Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bayanaboina Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y Siva Reddy Vs M Gowtam , I.A.S.

Voona Ramarao Vs a Sai Prasad(Dismissed)

Shaik Khasim Vali Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

J Gowtam Naidu Vs the State of Ap

Mathena Lakshmpathi Sai Krishna Prasad Raju Vs the State of Ap

Yenugu Nageswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh