Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 59592 (AP)

Shaik Ghouse Peer, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/9956/2018 · 2025-12-28

Ninala Jayasurya

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010224282018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO.9956 OF 2018 Between: Shaik Ghouse Peer ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N. BHARAT BABU Counsel for the Respondents: 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Ms. E. Somasree, learned counsel representing Sri N. Bharath Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, in short, is that despite making a representation dated 24.01.2018, seeking to de-notify the lands admeasuring Ac.4.00 NJS, J WP No.9956 of 2018 2 cents in Survey No.408/7 and Ac.1.20 cents in Survey No.408/2 of Chinnachowk village, Kadapa town, YSR Kadapa district, the same has not been considered by the respondents so far. A consequential relief is also sought to release the said lands in favour of the petitioner by taking return of the compensation paid. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, though the above mentioned lands were acquired and a consent Award was passed in respect of the same, the possession was never taken by the Government and continued with the petitioner, that the petitioner is carrying on agricultural operations in the said lands. Further, as the lands, which were acquired from the petitioner, are not put to use for the purpose for which they were acquired, the petitioner made a representation dated 24.01.2018 requesting the respondents 2 and 3 to withdraw the acquisition proceedings on returning the compensation paid to the petitioner along with interest. 4. Though a counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent, the receipt of the said representation is not denied, but nothing NJS, J WP No.9956 of 2018 3 is stated as to whether any orders have been passed either accepting or rejecting the request of the petitioner. 5. Therefore, instead of going into the other aspects, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition providing that the respondents 2 and 3 shall take necessary action on the petitioner’s representation dated 24.01.2018. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a copy of the same to the respondents 2 and 3 and, on receipt of which, necessary orders shall be passed, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA , J Date:29.12.2025 Nsr NJS, J WP No.9956 of 2018 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Writ Petition No.9956 of 2018 Date:29.12.2025 Nsr