Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 24.06.2026. Date of uploading : APHC010243132018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10721/2018 Between: 1. MUMMADI SUBBA RATNAMMA, W/O SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 61 YEARS AGRICULTURISTS AND RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, 2. NAGAM SIVARAMI REDDY, S/O PEDDA YELLA REDDY, AGED 66 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. NAGAM YELLA REDDY, S/O SUBBA REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. NAGAM RAGHURAMI REDDY, S/O CHINNA YELLA REDDY, AGED 59 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. MUMMADI PITCHAMMA, W/O RAMANA REDDY, AGED 59 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. NAGAM SUBBA REDDY, S/O GANGI REDDY, AGED 61 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA 2 VS,J W.P.No.10721 of 2018 PRADESH. 7. MUMMADI VEERA REDDY, S/O CHENCHU NAGI REDDY, AGED 79 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 8. NAGAM YELLA REDDY, S/O NADIPI YELLA REDDY, AGED 66 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 9. NPC YELLA REDDY, S/O PEDDA SUBBA REDDY, AGED 47 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 10. KEMISETTY ESWARAIAH, S/O ROSAIAH, AGED 51 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 11. KAMISETTY SAMBAIAH, S/O ROSAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 12. THULASI TIRUPALAIAH, S/O PEDDA ADAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 13. NAGAM SUBBA REDDY, S/O ABBI REDDY, AGED 71 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 14. THULASI LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O LATE NARAYANA, AGED 56 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 15. DOOLA VENKATA SUBBAMMA, W/O VENKATARAMANA REDDY, AGED 46 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 16. JYOTHI GANGI REDDY, S/O GANGI REDDY, AGED 76 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA 3 VS,J W.P.No.10721 of 2018 PRADESH. 17. KORIVI NARAPUREDDY (DIED), HIS LR WIFE K. SAVITRI AGED 54 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 18. MUKKARA VOBULAMMA, W/O CHINNA GOPIREDDY, AGED 55 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 19. NAGAM GOPIREDDYGARI YELLA REDDY, S/O Y9LLA REDDY, AGED 61 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 20. NAGAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, S/O PUTTA REDDY, AGED 66 RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 21. PATTERN CHINNA NARAYANA REDDY (DIED), HIS LR WIFE P. YELLAMMA, AGED 71 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 22. NAGAM RAMI REDDY, S/O ABBI REDDY, AGED 61 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 23. NAGAM JAYARAMI REDDY, S/O ABBI REDDY, AGED 56 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 24. NAGAM SREERAMULU REDDY, S/O CHINNA YELLA REDDY, AGED 66 YEARS NAGAM SREERAMULU REDDY 25. NAGAM SUBBA REDDY, S/O NADIPI YELLA REDDY, AGED 71 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 26. NAGAM RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O PEDDA YELLA REDDY, AGED 61 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4 VS,J W.P.No.10721 of 2018 27. PATTERN SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/O CHINNA NARAPAREDDY, AGED 41 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 28. PATTERN GANGI REDDY, S/O NARAYYA, AGED 81 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 29. PATURU JAYARAMI REDDY, S/O RAMI REDDY, AGED 71 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 30. NAGAM VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, S/O PEDDA YELLA REDDY, AGED 49 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 31. NAGAM VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY, S/O YELLA REDDY, AGED 41 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 32. GONTU YELLAIAH, S/O CHINNABBIT AGED 56 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 33. MAMIDI BUJJI REDDY, S/O PEDDA KONDA REDDY, AGED 81 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 34. NAGAM MALLAPPAGARI NARAYANAMMA, S/O YELLAIAH, AGED 61 YEARS RESIDENTS OF ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCUMCHAIRMAN DISTRICT 5 VS,J W.P.No.10721 of 2018 EMPOWERED COMMITTEE, KADAPA KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, GALERU NAGARI SUJALA SRAVANTHI (GNSS) SANKARAPURAM, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LA TGP UNITII PODALAKUR, AT KADAPA MAMILLAPALLI, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCUMCHAIRMAN DISTRICT 5 VS,J W.P.No.10721 of 2018 EMPOWERED COMMITTEE, KADAPA KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, GALERU NAGARI SUJALA SRAVANTHI (GNSS) SANKARAPURAM, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LA TGP UNITII PODALAKUR, AT KADAPA MAMILLAPALLI, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 to to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 16-02-2018 made in proceedings bearing Ref.No.A/92/2002 whereby and where under the 4th respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 13-12-2017 which was made pursuant to an order in WA No.894/2010 dated 23-11-2017 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India by setting aside the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to pay compensation on par with the payment made in so far as structures categorized as I and II where under additional benefits of solatium 30percentage plus 12 percentage interest an 25percentsge consent award have been paid by treating and paying the same amount to the petitioner's structure which have been categorized as Category No.IV situated at Chenduvoy Village, Atloor Mandal, Kadapa District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to direct the respondents herein to pay compensation on par with the payment made in so far as structures categorized as I and II where under additional benefits of solatium 30% plus 12% interest an 25% consent award have been paid by treating and paying the same amount to the petitioner's structure which have been categorized as Category No.IV situated at Chenduvoy 6 VS,J W.P.No.10721 of 2018 Village, Atloor Mandal, Kadapa District, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following: 7 VS,J W.P.No.10721 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 16-02-2018 made in proceedings bearing Ref.No.A/92/2002 whereby and where under the 4th respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 13-12-2017 which was made pursuant to an order in WA No.894/2010 dated 23-11-2017 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India by setting aside the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to pay compensation on par with the payment made in so far as structures categorized as I and II where under additional benefits of solatium 30percentage plus 12 percentage interest an 25percentsge consent award have been paid by treating and paying the same amount to the petitioner's structure which have been categorized as Category No.IV situated at Chenduvoy Village, Atloor Mandal, Kadapa District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass” 2. The petitioners herein are residents of Chenduvoy village, Atloor mandal, Kadapa district, which fell under acquisition for the purpose of Somasila project. After duly following the procedure as per Land Acquisition Act, the 1st respondent has passed an award vide No.3/2003- 04, dated 15.03.2004 with SSR rates, by duly paying the compensation to Category-IV structures without including solaitum 30%, interest 12% and 8 VS,J W.P.No.10721 of 2018 thereupon consent award 25%. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in categorizing the houses of the petitioners under category- IV and not paying the compensation as was paid to the houses/structures of categories I and II i.e., 30% solatium, 12% interest and 25% consent award on these accrued amounts to the petitioners’ houses/structures, the petitioners filed W.P.No.6138 of 2007, which was tagged along with W.P.No.5579 of 2006 and batch, wherein this Court passed the following common order on 20.08.2010: “…Pursuant to their consent, awards came to be passed and thereupon, the petitioners received the compensation. It is well settled that if once land holders receive the compensation without any protest pursuant to the consent award, they cannot be permitted to contend that the method of calculation of the award is discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constituion of India. 10. Therefore, I find that the writ petitions are devoid of merits and they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.” 3. The said order was challenged by the petitioners vide W.A.No.894 of 2010, which was disposed of on 23.11.2017 as under: “After arguing for some time Sri P. Venugopal, Learned Senior Counsel, would submit that, even if the finding recorded by the Learned Single Judge that the Award, as passed, was a consent award were to be accepted, the appellant-writ petitioners were not even paid the compensation which they 9 VS,J W.P.No.10721 of 2018 were entitled to in terms of the consent award. While the Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Irrigation would contend otherwise, we see no reason to take upon ourselves the task of computing the compensation payable to the land owners in terms of the consent award. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to dispose of the Writ Petition permitting the petitioners to submit a representation to the first respondent explaining how, according to them, the compensation received by them was lower than what they were entitled to under the consent award. Sri P. Venugopal, Learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the appellant-writ petitioners would submit such a representation within three weeks from today. In case such a representation is submitted, respondents 1 and 3 shall examine whether the amount paid to the appellant-writ petitioners earlier was in terms of the consent award, pass a reasoned order on their representation, and communicate the same to the appellant-writ petitioners at the earliest, and in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4. In pursuance of the said directions of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 13.12.2017, on such representation, the 4th respondent, vide impugned proceedings dated 16.02.2018 rejected the case of the petitioners by stating that the petitioners are not entitled for any other benefits. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed. 10 VS,J W.P.No.10721 of 2018 5. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petitioner and by duly stating that once a consent award is passed, the petitioners do not have any right to claim any other benefit including 30% solatium, 12% interest. Hence requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners furnished a copy of the judgment dated 19.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1889 of 2017, which was filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.7222 of 2007 (one amongst W.P.No.5579 of 2006 and batch) wherein, this Court passed the following order: “7. The fact of the matter remains that the appellants held various parcels of land among those, which was submerged in Somasila Project. The official respondents do not have the contention that any of the petitioners is not entitled to compensation. The only issue is as to whether they are entitled to the decision in the form of an award as accepted by them, following the negotiations through the Empowered Committee. XXX XXX 11 VS,J W.P.No.10721 of 2018 10. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed in part and the impugned order of the learned single Judge is modified by vacating the rejection of the writ petitioners’ claim for 25% enhancement of the compensation. It is declared and ordered that each of the appellants is entitled to 25% enhancement of the compensation due to each of them. Such amounts shall carry interest at 8% p.a. for the period from 01.01.2004 till the date of payment, excluding seven (7) years. All amounts due as compensation and interest as per this judgment shall be quantified and paid to each of the petitioners or their representatives in law, as the case may be, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 8. Admittedly, W.P.No.7222 of 2007, filed by the appellants in W.A.No.1889 of 2017, was heard and disposed of by way of a common order dated 20.08.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5579 of 2006 and batch. The writ petition filed by the petitioners i.e. W.P.No.6138 of 2007 was dismissed by way of a common order dated 20.08.2010 and subsequently, in W.A.No.894 of 2010, the said order was reversed by directing the petitioners to submit a representation within a period of three weeks, on receiving which, the respondents were directed to examine whether the amount paid to the petitioners was in terms of consent award and then to pass reasoned order. However, pursuant to such representation submitted by the petitioners, the 4th respondent, vide the impugned proceedings dated 16.02.2018 rejected the case of the 12 VS,J W.P.No.10721 of 2018 petitioners alleging that the petitioners are not entitled for any other benefit as it is a consent award. 9. It can also be observed that the petitioners in W.P.No.7222 of 2007 (one amongst W.P.No.5579 of 2006 and batch) filed W.A.No.1889 of 2017 aggrieved by the common order dated 20.08.2010, which was allowed in part and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7222 of 2007 was modified by ordering 25% enhancement of the compensation due to each of the appellants therein. As the petitioners in the present case also stand in the same footing, this Court is of the opinion that they are also entitled for a similar relief as granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1889 of 2017, dated 19.09.2018. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set-aside. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned proceedings dated 16.02.2018 are hereby set-aside in similar lines as in W.A.No.1889 of 2017, dated 19.09.2018. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 19.09.2018 passed by a Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of 13 VS,J W.P.No.10721 of 2018 Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.1889 of 2017 to this order. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 24.06.2026 Gss Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No