APHC010638662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 33240/2025 Between: 1. GUDLA SATYA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O SATYA REDDY, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O 19-6-11, OLD AYYANNAPALEM, PEDAGANTYADA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 2. PULI APPALA REDDY, S/O APPARAO, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O 22-78-7, PEDAKORADA AREA, PEDAGANTYADA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, GANTYADA MANDAL, VISAKJHAPATNAM-DISTRICT. ...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 toPleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the 2 2nd Respondent not to interfere with construction by the Petitioners in Plot No.2011, situated in Sy. No.85 of Chinakorada RH Colony, Pedagantyada Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to direct the Respondents 2 not to demolish the structures in Plot No.2011, in Sy. No.85 of Chinakorada RH Colony, Pedgantyada Village and Mandal Visakhapatnam District pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 3 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 2nd respondent in interfering with the construction by the petitioners in Plot No.2011 situated in Sy.No.85 of Chinakorada RH Colony, Pedagantyada Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 20.04.1998. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions of the 2nd respondent dated 29.11.2025 submits that the requisite conditions for allotting rehabilitation card and plot under R&R package are as under: 1) Requisite conditions for allotting rehabilitation card and plot under R&R package:  At the time of establishment of Steel Project rehabilitation, R- Cards were issued to the displaced persons and also to their married major sons and also house site plots were allotted to them as per their eligibility.  As per rehabilitation norms one displaced family is eligible for one R-Card and one house site plot @107 Sq. Yds.  Further, the displaced person’s name should be recorded in the respective Award copy and compensation for dwelling unit should received by the displaced persons to obtain R&R package.  Married major sons of displaced persons as on cutoof date 30.11.1980. 2) As verified from the records available in this office, the Plot No.2011 in Pedangantyada RHC-2 was not allotted to the 4 petitioners’ vendor or her husband. Hence, the petitioners’ vendor has no right to sell the subject property to the petitioners herein. Hence the petitioners have no right over the subject land. The petitioners are trying to misrepresent the facts by producing fake and fabricated documents before the Hon’ble High Court. 3) Further, petitioners herein enclosed Xerox copy of proceedings said to have been issued by the then Special Officer, LA, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam in D.Dis. No.146 C/S.O/ dt.20.04.98. As seen from this Xerox copy of proceedings it is observed that R.No.266 of Chinakorada Village was mentioned on this copy but as per the records there is no R.No.266 in Chinakorada Village and the last R.No.(Rehabilitation card Number) for the Chinakorada village is 191 as per the records. 5. At the time of establishment of Steel Plant rehabilitation, R-Cards were issued to the displaced persons and also to their married major sons and also house plots were allotted to them as per their eligibility. As per rehabilitation norms, one displaced family is eligible for one R- Card and one house site plot @ 107 Sq. Yds. The displaced person’s name should be recorded in the respective award copy and compensation for dwelling unit should be received by the displaced person to obtain R&R package. Married major sons of displaced persons are made eligible as on cutoff date 30.11.1980. As verified from the records available in the office of the 2nd respondent, the Plot No.2011 in Pedagantyada RHC-2 was not allotted to the petitioners’ vendor or her husband. Hence, the petitioners’ vendor has no right to sell the property to the petitioners herein. The petitioners have no right over the subject land and the petitioners are trying to misrepresent the facts by producing fake and fabricated documents. The petitioners 5 enclosed Xerox copy of proceedings said to have been issued by the then Special Officer, LA, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam in D.Dis. No.146 C/S.O/ dt.20.04.98. As seen from the above said Xerox copy of proceedings it is observed that R.No.266 of Chinakorada Village was mentioned on that copy but as per the records there is no R.No.266 in Chinakorada Village and the last R.No.(Rehabilitation card Number) for the Chinakorada village is 191 as per the records. In view of the above, it is evident that the petitioners are trying to encroach the valuable rehabilitation lands without having any rights over the said plots. 6. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon recording the written instructions of the 2nd respondent dated 29.11.2025, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 are directed to deal with the rehabilitation lands/ plots including the subject plot strictly in accordance with law to prevent any encroachment. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The written instructions of the 2nd respondent dated 29.11.2025 shall be made as part of the court record. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 23.02.2026 NNN