Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 56072 (AP)

Gandreddi Anil Babu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/7662/2020 · 2025-10-14

B Krishna Mohan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010127142020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7662/2020 Between: 1. GANDREDDI ANIL BABU,, SIO LATE G.DASU , AGED 44 YEARS, D.NO 34-8-13, NICOLAS STREET, GNANAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. GAVARA NANA BABU,, S/O BANGAR NAIDU, AGED 57 YEARS, RIO D.NO. 6-12, NARAVA POST, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. GAVARA BABU RAO,, S/O BANGAR NAIDU, AGED 69 YEARS, RIO D.NO. 32-5-11/1, MAIN ROAD, NATHAYYAPALEM, B.H.P.V POST, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. GAVARA SURI BABU,, S/O BANGAR NAIDU, AGED 57 YEARS, D.NO. 6-12, NARAVA POST, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. MADAKA KONDAYYA,, SIO RAMUDU, AGED 77 YEARS, D.NO. 1- 198, JERRIPOTHULAPALEM, CHINTAGATLA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND ACQUISITION), SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA 2 HBKM,J W.P.No.7662 of 2020 PRADESH. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K B RAMANNA DORA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) 3 HBKM,J W.P.No.7662 of 2020 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners' land admeasuring in survey No's.79/17 to an extent of Ac.1.78 cents, 79/18 to an extent of Ac.1.34 cents, 79/8 to an extent of Ac.1.48 cents, 79/9 to an extent of Ac.1.58 cents, 78/4 to an extent of Ac.1.23 cents, 76/5 to an extent of Ac.1.88 cents situated at Jerripothulapalem Village, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam District under the guise to acquire the said property for the purpose of to handover to the 2nd respondent under the Navarathnalu Pedalandariki Illu scheme without paying compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent submits that the land in an extent of Ac.1.23 cents in Sy.No.78/4 of Jerripothulapalem Village, Pendurthi Mandal was acquired under the orders of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam dated 27.05.2023 along with the other land in an extent of Ac.1.83 cents in Sy.No.78/3, belonging to Smt. Gandreddi Pushpalatha. In lieu of the acquired land, alternatively compensation was granted by allotting the house plots bearing Nos.10, 12, 17 and 19 in an extent of 2754 Sq. yards in layout L.P.No.53/JER/PEN. A land Pooling Ownership Certificate was also 4 HBKM,J W.P.No.7662 of 2020 issued in favour of her and the plots were registered in her name by the RDO, Visakhapatnam i.e., the 4th respondent herein under the document No.6636/2023 in the office of the SRO Pedurthi on 06.10.2023. Smt. Pushpalatha along with her son Ganireddy Anil Babu/the 1st petitioner herein already alienated plot No.10, i.e., one of the allotted plots in the year 2023 vide Doc.No.7646/2023, which clearly establishes that the petitioners have accepted the compensation and acted upon the allotment. With respect to the subject lands in an extent of Ac.1.78 cents in Sy.No.79/17, Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.78/18, Ac.1.48 cents in Sy.No.79/8, Ac.1.58 cents in Sy.No.79/9 and Ac.1.88 cents in Sy.No.76/5, the same were not acquired or pooled, the possession continues with the petitioners and there is no interference from the respondents. 4. In view of the above said statement made by the 4th respondent in his counter affidavit, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN 15.10.2025 PGT