APHC010333172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 16849/2025 Between: 1. NILE LTD, CORPORATE OFFICE IS AT PLOT NO.24, MLA COLONY, ROAD NO-1, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500004 REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, T.HEMANTH KUMAR, S/O LATE T. STEPHENSON. AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCSERVICE, R/O.HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATHY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT EARLIER ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHY, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 134. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHY, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, RAMAGIRI MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHY, AP. 5. NEW RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD. (NREDCAP), 12-464/5/1, RIVER OAKS APARTMENTS, CSR KALYANA MANDAPAM ROAD, TADEPALLE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 ...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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2ND respondent is registering the lands to an extent of Ac.5-58 cents in Sy.No.708, an extent of Ac.5-58 in Sy.No.709, an extent of Ac. 10-63 cents in Sy.No.712, an extent of Ac.4-04 cents in Sy.No.713, an extent of Ac. 13-30 cents in Sy.No.698 total admeasuring Ac. 39.13 cents situated at Ramagiri and Polepalli Villages, Ramagiri Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District in favour of the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 300A of the Constitution of India and the Government Orders and consequently, direct the 2ND respondent herein to register the lands to an extent of 39.13 acres, specifically comprising 5.58 acres in Sy.No.708, 5.58 acres in Sy.No.709, 10.63 acres in Sy.No.712, 4.04 acres in Sy.No.713, and 13.30 acres in Sy.No.698, situated at Ramagiri and Polepalli Villages, Ramagiri Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District in favour of the petitioner company and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to direct the 2NDrespondent herein to register the lands to an extent of 39.13 acres, specifically comprising 5.58 acres in Sy.No.708, 5.58 acres in Sy.No.709, 10.63 acres in Sy.No.712, 4.04 acres in Sy.No.713, and 13.30 acres in Sy.No.698, situated at Ramagiri and Polepalli Villages, Ramagiri Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District in favour of the petitioner and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 16849/2025 The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is against the action of the respondents in not registering the subject lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.39.13 cents located in Sy.Nos.708, 709, 712, 713, 698 located at Ramagiri and Polepalli Villages, Ramagiri Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District in favour of the petitioner. 3. It is contended that the Government of Andhra Pradesh in 1994 in furtherance of developing nonconventional energy, took a policy decision to handover advance possession of lands over an extent of Ac.4060.35 cents located in various villages of erstwhile Anantapur District in favour of Non Conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (NEDCAP) for setting up wind project(s). In furtherance of the same, the District Collector vide proceedings, dated 15.10.1995 proposed to alienate the said extent of land in favour of NEDCAP. The Government however issued a G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 16.03.1996, to alienate the land directly in favour of the individual companies, instead of alienating the same in favour of NEDCAP. Thus G.O.Ms.No.786, Revenue (ASSN.IV) Department, dated 21.09.1996 was 4 issued to alienate the land directly to the developers on payment of market value at Rs.3,000/- per acre. 4. It is contended that pursuant to the said G.O.Ms.No.786, dated 21.09.1996, the petitioner was allotted the subject property. After the allotment of the subject land the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.1,16,820/- towards consideration at prevailing market rate. It is stated that the said amount has already been paid by the petitioner by depositing the same into the Treasury vide challan dated 03.04.1997, the respondents were also informed of the same. Despite the said allotment and payment of consideration, the revenue records in respect of the subject lands have not been mutated in the name of the petitioner nor the document has been registered in favour of the petitioner. Despite several requests made by the petitioner for completing the process either by registration of the sale deed or by mutation of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records, no orders have been passed. It is further contended that the respondent No.4 by his letter, dated 16.02.2021 submitted to the respondent No.2 has sought instructions for further action in the matter. 5. The petitioner’s grievance is that despite payment of the sale consideration amount demanded by the Collector, no documents have been executed in favor of the petitioner. Thus the petitioner was constrained to issue a legal notice, dated 11.04.2025 preceded by a representation, dated 27.03.2023, despite the same no proceedings have been issued to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. 5 6. No counter-affidavits have been filed by the respondents. 7. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the District Collector to pass appropriate orders on the issue considering the legal notice, dated 11.04.2025, which was preceded by a representation of the petitioner, dated 27.03.2023, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 08-05-2026 MSI