Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47216 (AP)

Thogaru Rama Rao, v. Union of India,

WP/15389/2021 · 2025-09-22

Sumathi Jagadam

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010266062021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 15389/2021 Between: 1. THOGARU RAMA RAO, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O. RAJARATNAM, CHINNAGANJAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THOGARU LAKSHMANARAO, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. RAJARATNAM, CHINNAGANJAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THOGARU SRINIVASARAO, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. RAJARATNAM, CHINNAGANJAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THOGARU VENKATESWARARAO, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. RAJARATNAM, CHINNAGANJAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THOGARU DURGARAO, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. RAJARATNAM, CHINNAGANJAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT AND NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES, TRANSPORT BHAVAN-1, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, G.5 AND 6, SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI- 110075. 3. M/S DILIP BUILD CON LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLOT NO.5, INSIDE GOVINDANARAYANA SINGH GATE, 2 JS,J W.P.No.15389/2021 CHUNABATTI, KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL-462016. 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR PILL, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA D.NO.23/3/39/501, 5THH FLOOR, DHANALAKSHMI NAGAR, VYKUNTAPURAM ROAD, MR PALLI, TIRUPATI-517507. 5. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL ZONEIII, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, NEW DELHI- 110001. 6. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, REGIONAL OFFICE, DOOR NO.38-2-3/2, NEAR AMERICAN HOSPITAL, VIJAYAWADA-520010. ...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 an appropriate order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents 2,4,5and 6 in not taking steps to deliver the property in Sy.No. 497/8. Ac. 2.44 cents, Sy.No. 495/9. Ac. 1.18 cents, Sy.No. 495/4. Ac. 1.12 cents, Sy.No. 495/2.Ac. 8.12 cents, Sy.No. 494/15. Ac. 1.10 cents, Sy.No. 495/8. Ac. 0.39 cents, Sy.No. 49517. Ac. 0.65 cents, totaling an extent of Ac. 15.00 cents of agricultural land in Chinaganjam Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, by the 3rd respondent in as is where is condition in accordance to the clause 18 of the lease agreement as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to ventilate the grievance of the petitioners forthwith and see that the property is delivered by the 3rd respondent in terms of clause 18 of the lease agreement and also direct the respondents to pay damages of Rs.4,24,05,000 to the petitioners for the loss sustained by them in the interest of justice, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 consider the case of the petitioners and direct the respondents to ventilate the grievance of the petitioners forthwith and see that the property is delivered by the 3rd respondent in terms of clause 18 of the lease agreement and also 3 JS,J W.P.No.15389/2021 direct the respondents to pay damages of Rs.4,24,05,000 to the petitioners for the loss sustained by them in the interest of justice, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SITA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GINJUPALLI SUBBA RAO 2. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) 3. The Court made the following ORDER: During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioners are willing to receive an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards top soil productivity compensation. They would also submit that the petitioners are ready to give No Objection Certificate to the respondents. 2. In view of the submissions made by both the learned counsel, this Court feels it appropriate that the petitioners shall furnish No Objection Certificate to the respondents. On receiving such certificate, the respondents shall take steps to release an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the petitioners towards compensation within one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands closed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 23.09.2025 KAS 4 JS,J W.P.No.15389/2021 601 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 15389/2021 Dated: 23.09.2025 KAS