APHC010052562018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.2309 OF 2018 Between: 1. K.Obula Reddy, S/o.Pedda Obula Reddy, 71 years, r/o. Sankepalli, Kondapuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, and others. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & Command Area Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Irrigation & CAD G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, who appeared through online. Also heard Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the inaction on the part of the respondents in acquiring the subject matter lands, in pursuance of the proposals of respondent Nos.4 to 6 as per Ex.P.1 Material papers, even though the same are under submersion of Gandikota Reservoir as illegal, arbitrary, etc., and for a consequential direction to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings and pay compensation to the petitioners for the subject matter lands. 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions, inter alia to the effect that as per Ex.P.1 i.e., the Land Acquisition Proposals for acquisition of land under submergence in the foreshore of Gandikota Reservoir, the lands of the petitioners situated in Nagamalledinne Village are coming under submersion and despite the same, the respondents did not initiate Land Acquisition proceedings and pay compensation to the petitioners. He submits that as the petitioners are deprived of their valuable land, they are entitled for payment of compensation and as the respondent authorities are not taking any action, the petitioners are constrained to file the present writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, wherein it is specifically asserted that the sketches were tentatively prepared by EPC Agency M/s Maytas– NCC(JC) and they were not approved by respondent Nos.4 to 6. He has also stated that the Departmental Engineers have conducted a detailed survey and block and concluded that the survey made by EPC Agency is not correct. While drawing the attention of this Court to the specific averments in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the counter affidavit, he submits that the petitioners’ lands are above Full Reservoir Level (FRL), that the same do not come under submergence and that no reply affidavit is filed denying the same. He submits that the petitioners are, therefore, not entitled for any compensation as claimed in the writ petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit on 13.3.2018 and as pointed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader no reply affidavit is filed denying the specific averments made on behalf of the respondents. 3 6. In view of the same and more particularly as the averments made in the counter affidavit are not specifically denied by filing reply affidavit, this Court has no option except to treat them as admitted. Therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted and the writ petition is, however, disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies, if any, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J December 03, 2025 vasu