Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 07-07-2026 Date of uploading : APHC010340512026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE 7th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 18090/2026 Between: T Ayyappa Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P SHASHI VARDHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 18090 of 2026 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of the respondents in not providing employment to the petitioners 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 family members of the petitioners were acquired for Somasila Project and Awards were passed. As per G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, employment was to be offered to the members of the displaced families or their dependents. The petitioners, being the dependents of the original landowners, applied for employment in terms of the said G.O. However, their cases were not considered for employment. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.40372 of 2018 and batch and 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 cases. Learned counsel further submits that the land acquisition took place long back and despite the lapse of several years, employment has still not been provided. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that their cases 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. 3 5. Considering the fact that the lands of the family members of the petitioners were acquired long back, 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, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners 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, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 07.07.2026 Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable eha 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 18090 of 2026 Dated: 07.07.2026 eha