APHC010695682015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. K. DHANUNJAYA REDDY, KADAPA DIST, S/O. K. PRATHAP REDDY, AGED 20 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2/1, RIO. KALAMALLA (V), YERRAKUNTLA (M), KADAPA DISTRICT. 1. PRL SECY IRRIGATION PROJECTS WING DEPT HYD 2 IRRIGATION (PROJECTS WING) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR Y S R KADAPA DISTRICT KADAPA, 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEEER RAYALASEEMA THERMAL POWER PROJECT, V.V. REDDY NAGAR, KALAMALLA (V) KADAPA DISTRICT 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 toIssue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 1st Respondent in issuing impugned G.O.Ms. No. 98, dated 15 employment only to the displaced person, son, daughter and spouse, thereby denying grandson or other members of the fam land so acquired for the purpose of public projects and consequential action of the Respondents 2 to 3 in denying employment to the petitioner under Land Looser Category only on the ground that petitioner is grandson as highl IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 22125 OF 2015 K. DHANUNJAYA REDDY, KADAPA DIST, S/O. K. PRATHAP REDDY, AGED 20 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2/1, RIO. KALAMALLA (V), YERRAKUNTLA (M), KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND PRL SECY IRRIGATION PROJECTS WING DEPT HYD 2 IRRIGATION (PROJECTS WING) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR Y S R KADAPA DISTRICT KADAPA, THE CHIEF ENGINEEER RAYALASEEMA THERMAL POWER PROJECT, V.V. REDDY NAGAR, KALAMALLA (V) KADAPA 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 toIssue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 1st Respondent in issuing impugned G.O.Ms. No. 98, dated 15-04-1986 conferring benefit of employment only to the displaced person, son, daughter and spouse, thereby denying grandson or other members of the family, who are dependants on the land so acquired for the purpose of public projects and consequential action of the Respondents 2 to 3 in denying employment to the petitioner under Land Looser Category only on the ground that petitioner is grandson as highl IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM K. DHANUNJAYA REDDY, KADAPA DIST, S/O. K. PRATHAP REDDY, AGED 20 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2/1, RIO. 2/1, RIO. KALAMALLA (V), ...PETITIONER PRL SECY IRRIGATION PROJECTS WING DEPT HYD 2 OT, IRRIGATION (PROJECTS WING) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR Y S R KADAPA DISTRICT KADAPA, - THE CHIEF ENGINEEER RAYALASEEMA THERMAL POWER PROJECT, V.V. REDDY NAGAR, KALAMALLA (V) KADAPA DISTRICT SPONDENT(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 toIssue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 1st Respondent in 1986 conferring benefit of employment only to the displaced person, son, daughter and spouse, thereby ily, who are dependants on the land so acquired for the purpose of public projects and consequential action of the Respondents 2 to 3 in denying employment to the petitioner under Land Looser Category only on the ground that petitioner is grandson as highly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 28520 OF 2015 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 direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner for employment under Land Looser Category in any posts of Junior Assistant / Junior Plant Attendant / Mazdoor or any other suitable post, as vacancies are existing under the 3rd Respondent without rejecting the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner is grandson pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. M VIDYASAGAR 3. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 22125 OF 2015 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue order or orders, direction or directions, Writ or Writs particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamous declaring the impugned action of the 1st Respondent in issuing impugned G.O.Ms. No. 98, dated 15-04-1986 conferring benefit of employment only to the displaced person, son, daughter and spouse, thereby denying grandson or other members of the family, who are dependants on the land so acquired for the purpose of public projects and consequential action of the Respondents 2 to 4 in denying employment to the petitioner under Land Looser Category only on the ground that petitioner is grandson as highly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India…” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the non-consideration of the petitioner’s candidature under the land losers quota in the respondent Corporation. 3. At the time of hearing, Sri Ravikanth, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Corporation, submits that the issue involved in the lis, had already been dealt with by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.908 of 2023 dated 03.11.2023. He further submits that the said judgment was served to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner acceded to the above submission. 5. Having regard to the submissions made, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, in the light of the directions of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.908 of 2023, dated 03.11.2023. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench, reads as follows: …..13. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 as well as the communications between the respondents and land losers, set out before this Court would show that the respondents had only assured the land losers that 50% of the posts, under the appropriate categories, would be reserved for the land losers and they would be given employment as and when recruitment for these posts is held. 14. In such circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Learned Single Judge of this Court dated 14.03.2023 and accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed…… 6. Since the directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench are binding, the Respondent Corporation is directed to look into the matter and take appropriate action, while considering the candidature of the petitioner under the land losers quota whenever the recruitment process for the posts is undertaken. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 30.01.2026 KK