APHC010371332022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 119 of 2022 Bench Sr.No:-20 [3552] K. Nagi Reddy and others ...Petitioners Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. K. S. Murthy, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing vice Mr. Ponnada Sree Vyas Advocate for Respondents: Mrs. S. Pranathi, Ld. Special Government Pleader CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 31st December, 2025. P C : Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents states that despite directions having been given to the Special Collector, Land Acquisition, YSR Kadapa District, to complete the entire process for payment of the ex gratia amount, the requisite documents which would entitle the claimants to claim the ex gratia amount in terms of the Government Order No.58, dated 19.03.1980, have not been furnished. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K. S. Murhty, however, submits that he would take necessary steps for ensuring that the concerned 2 HCJ & CGRJ WP(PIL)_119_2022 claimants approach the Special Collector, Land Acquisition, for claiming their amounts in terms of the aforementioned Government Order. 3. Although learned Senior Counsel laid a lot of emphasis that apart from the benefits which are liable to be paid to the claimants in terms of the Government Order No.58, the land holders are also entitled to Rehabilitation and Resettlement measures which are otherwise envisaged in terms of the Government Order No.68 dated 08.04.2005, learned Special Government Pleader, Mrs. S. Pranathi, has drawn our attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Pidugu Kondal Raidu and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 1 , which had specifically held that the benefit of Government Order No.68 would not be available to the claimants whose land fell under the Somasila Project. 4. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that assuming Government Order No.68 had no application to the Somasila Project, yet even in terms of Clause 3 of Government Order No.58, the claimants could opt for rehabilitation measures, which included assignment of land equal to the extent acquired from them, subject to a maximum of 21/2 acres of wet land and 5 acres of dry land in lieu of the ex-gratia amount which as per the Government Order No.58 is capped at Rs.1,000/- per individual. 5. Although there appeared to be few takers for the ex gratia amount considering the value of Rs.1,000/-, which was fixed as early as in the year 1 Writ Petition No.34786 of 2011 3 HCJ & CGRJ WP(PIL)_119_2022 1980, yet we do not want to close the right of the claimants to claim allotment of land as a rehabilitative measure in lieu of the ex gratia amount. 6. Be that as it may, we close the present proceedings, with a direction to the official respondents to ensure that whenever a claim is made for ex gratia amount, the amount as fixed under Government Order No.58 be paid, in the alternative, if there is a claim for rehabilitation in terms of Clause 3 of the Government Order No.58, dated 19.03.1980, the same be also considered by allowing the applicants to lay a claim before the Special Collector-cum-Joint Collector, GNSS Project, Kadapa, on which an appropriate decision shall be taken forthwith. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. SSN