M. Bhoolakshmamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/21782/2025 · 2025-08-17
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 29216 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 29216 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010417082025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 21782/2025 Between:
1. M. BHOOLAKSHMAMMA, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 54 YEARS, R/O. C.S. PURAM VILLAGE, C.S. PURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
2. M. OBULAMMA, W/O. CHINNA RAVANAIAH AGED 52 YEARS, R/O. C.S. PURAM VILLAGE, C.S. PURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
3. M. RAVANAMMA,, W/O. SRINIVASULU AGED 48 YEARS, R/O. C.S. PURAM VILLAGE, C.S. PURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
4. M. THIRUPATHAMMA, W/O. PEDDA RAMANAIAH AGED 52 YEARS, R/O. C.S. PURAM VILLAGE, C.S. PURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONER(S) AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY LA AND JOINT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE
5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, C.S. PURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO.21, TEACHERS COLONY GURUNANAK NAGAR ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, A.P. REP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENT(S)
2 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 a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their land in an extent of Ac. 1.96, Ac. 1.56 and Ac. 1.00 in Survey Nos.
2- 1, 2-2, and 2-3 at C.S Puram Village, C.S. Puram Mandal, Prakasam District without determining and depositing the compensation amount in favour of the petitioners as per Section 3 E (1) and 3 H (1) and (2) of National Highways Act, 1956 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to determine and deposit an amount of Rs.23,80,259/- (Rs 5,26,606/- per acre) with interest as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR) 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 respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their land in an extent of Ac. 1.96, Ac. 1.56 and Ac. 1.00 in Survey Nos. 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 at C.S Puram Village, C.S. Puram Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
2. THANDAVA YOGESH
The Court made the following:
3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 21782 of 2025 ORDER:
When the matter is arguing by the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Tandava Yogesh, learned Standing Counsel for 7th respondent/National Highways Authority of India, this Court pointed out some mistakes in the writ petition. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners requested permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition and to grant liberty to file fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. Permission is accorded. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioners to file fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 18.08.2025 SPP
4
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
W.P.No. 21782 OF 2025
Date: 18.08.2025
SPP