APHC010299462026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15806/2026 Between: 1. L.SREEKANTH REDDY, S/O LEBAKA SREENIVASULU REDDY, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-75, EGUVASIDDAVARAM, PENAGALURU MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES ( R AND R) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NTR TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR( TIRUPATI) DISTRICT- 517507 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR DISTRICT, KADAPA- 516001 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SOMASILA PROJECT, DARGAMITTA, SPS NELLORE DISTRICT- 52403 2 ...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 pas orders in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the respondents inaction in providing employment to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 98 Irrigation Department Dt. 15.4.1986 though his name is included in the list published @ http//kadapa.ap.nic.in on 6.4.2023 as arbitrary, illegal. discriminatory and violative of right to life, Article 14, 19, 21,and 300 A of the of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider his candidature for employment at par with the candidates mentioned in Memo No. 7477081/R and R/A2/2023-7 (C.No. 2116015) dt. 30.6.2025 and Progs. SE/SKDGNSS/KDP/AB/EC/AB/CE.2/E20/260 M/259 M and 259 M dt. 22.4.2026. grant IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 consider petitioner’s candidature for providing employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 98 Irrigation Department Dt. 15.4.1986 by extending the benefit at part with the candidates mentioned in Memo No. 7477081/R& R/A2/2023- 7 (C.No. 2116015) dt. 30.6.2025& Progs. SE/SKDGNSS7KDP/AB/EC/AB/ CE.2/E20/260 M/259 M& 259 M dt. 22.4.2026 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.15806 of 2026 O R D E R: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the Respondents in not providing employment to the Petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (PROJ. WING) Department, dated 15.04.1986, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The lands of the parents of the Petitioner were acquired in submerged villages, for the purpose of the Somasila Project in the years 1979-1980. As per G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (PROJ. WING) Department, dated 15.04.1986, employment was to be offered to the members of the displaced families or their dependents. The Petitioner, being the dependent of the original landowner, applied for employment in terms of the said G.O. However, though his name was reflected in the shortlisted eligible persons, his case was not considered for employment. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.40372 of 2018 and batch, and 5 W.P.No.3445 of 2020, wherein employment was directed to be offered to the dependents of the landowners therein, and seeks similar relief in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the land acquisition took place in 1979-1980 and, despite the lapse of more than 45 years, employment has still not been provided. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that case of Petitioner will be considered and necessary action will be initiated for providing employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, as per the rules in force. 5. Considering the fact that the lands of the Petitioner were acquired way back in 1979-1980, the delay in providing employment cannot be justified; more so, as the employment was to be treated as part of the promised compensation. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for employment on par with similarly placed persons, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, 6 shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 19.06.2026 chs 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 57 WRIT PETITION NO:15806/2026 Dt. 19.06.2026 chs