Chintanippala Tavit Naidu v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Mar 2026WP/6276/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vamsadhara Project displaced persons quota employment; G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation and CAD (PW) Dept. dt. 15.04.1986; land acquisition awards and compensation; exclusion from consideration list; Articles 14 and 16 arbitrariness; one-year limitation not insistable; Government Memo No.480-LAR (2)/87-2 dated 24.08.1987; O.A.No.7917 of 2003 (APAT); W.P.No.2436 of 2011 Division Bench directions; SLP No.14305 of 2011 confirmation; W.P.(AT) No.174 of 2021 batch; W.A.No.356 of 2023; W.P.No.33135 of 2023; consideration within three months; Srikakulam district; writ of mandamus.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the petitioners for appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, and pass appropriate orders within three months; no order as to costs. ¶¶49

Chintanippala Tavit Naidu Vs the State of Ap — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' failure to consider the petitioners for employment under the displaced persons quota of the Vamsadhara Project per G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, by excluding their names from the list, is illegal, unjust and arbitrary contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, entitling them to inclusion and appointment. +1 more

¶¶35

Court's answer

In view of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2436 of 2011, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' case for appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, and to pass appropriate orders.

¶¶49

Ratio / Principle

The consideration exercise directed above shall be completed within three months from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.6276 of 2026 (Justice D. Ramesh, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, 06.03.2026): Five unemployed applicants whose lands were acquired for the Vamsadhara Project (awards passed, compensation paid) sought a mandamus directing respondents 2 to 5 to include them in the list for employment under the displaced persons quota per G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation & CAD (PW) Dept., dt. 15.04.1986, contending the omission was illegal and arbitrary contrary to Articles 14 and 16, and that the G.O.'s one-year limitation could not be insisted upon per earlier Tribunal, Division Bench and Supreme Court decisions, including relief granted in W.P.No.33135 of 2023 (23.01.2026). Disposing of the petition in view of the Division Bench directions in W.P.No.2436 of 2011, the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment under the G.O. and pass appropriate orders within three months; no costs.

¶1

¶2

APHC010114892026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3208]

¶6

FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 6276/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

CHINTANIPPALA TAVIT NAIDU, S/O. LATE JAGANNADHAM, UN-EMPLOYEE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, BORAGAVALASA VILLAGE, BURJA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

SAILADA VENKATARAMANA,, S/O. LATE TAVUDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O. HIRAMANDALAM VILLAGE, HIRAMANDALAM MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3.

¶13

DANNANA NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O.D.REYYANNA, APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. UN-EMPLOYEE, BORAGAVALASA VILLAGE, BURJA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4.

¶14

SANKARANA YUGANDHAR,, S/O. S.SATYAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. UN-EMPLOYEE, BORAGAVALASA VILLAGE, BURJA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

.PANCHADI GOVINDA RAO,, S/O. P. APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. UN-EMPLOYEE, KRISHNAPURAM, AMADALAVALASA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

THE STATE OF AP, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT522503

¶20

THE STATE OF ANDHARA PRADESH, IRRIGATION CAD (RR) DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT522503 3.

¶21

THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCHAIRMAN, DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT- 523001

¶22

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, B.R.R.VAMSADHARA PROJECT CIRCLE, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT- 523001

¶23

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, UNIT-IV, NEAR RTC COMPLEX, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT- 532001.

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶26

1.S V MUNI REDDY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶29

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.6276 of 2026

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶35

“….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not considering the case of petitioners for employment, by including their names in the list, who seek employment under the displaced persons quota of Vamsadhara Project, ( Vamsadhara Project Scheme) as per eligibility in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation and CAD (PW) Dept. dt. 15.04.1986, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents-Authorities, to consider case of petitioners for providing employment by including their names in the list, who seek employment under the displaced persons quota of Vamsadhara Project (Vamsadhara Project Scheme), in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation and CAD (PW) Dept.dt. 15.04.1986 of the 2^nd respondent, to appoint in any suitable post, forthwith.….”

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶37

¶38

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

¶39

that the petitioners’ lands were acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Vamsadhara Project and awards were also passed and compensation was paid. In fact, the petitioners have lodged a claim for consideration under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986. However, surprisingly, the respondents have not included the petitioners in the list for consideration, though several others were considered and appointments were also provided. The petitioners have made applications on several occasions disputing the action of the respondents in not considering their case.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar facts and circumstances, this Court has already granted relief in W.P.No.33135 of 2023 by order dated 23.01.2026, and therefore the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioners further brought to the notice of this Court that under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, the condition of one-year limitation prescribed therein cannot be insisted upon, in view of Government Memo No.480-LAR (2)/87-2, dated

¶42

¶43

24.08.1987, the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7917 of 2003, dated 16.07.2007, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.2436 of 2011, dated 08.02.2011, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.14305 of 2011 by order dated 04.07.2011, and also the common judgment of this Court in W.P.(AT) No.174 of 2021 and batch dated 13.12.2022.

¶44

In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners also brought

¶45

to the notice of this Court the observations made in W.A.No.356 of 2023. Certain writ petitions, wherein rejection of the cases of the petitioners under G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, was challenged, were allowed, and the appeals preferred therein were disposed of with the following observation:

¶46

“In this Connection it is respectfully submitted that recently this Court rendered an elaborate Judgment on the subject matter in W.P.(AT) No.174 of 2021 and batch, dated 13.12.2022 by considering all the earlier Judgments passed by APAT and the D.B. of this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No. 2436 of 2011 which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.14305 of 2011, dated 04.07.2011, directing the Respondents to provide employment to the Petitioners therein by adopting

¶47

¶48

the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 and also in respect of other candidates, who now remain out of employment. I am also similarly situated and identically placed to the petitioners therein and entitled for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98. Hence, this Writ Petition.”

¶49

In view of the directions of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.2436 of 2011, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Project Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, and to pass appropriate orders. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

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

¶51

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶52

Date: 06.03.2026 Ivd

¶53

¶54

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶55

WRIT PETITION No.6276 of 2026

¶56