Date of reserved for orders : 15.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 29.07.2026 Date of uploading : 03.08.2026 APHC010506522024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE 29th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 26307 OF 2024 Between: 1. NANDYALA VENKATESWARLU REDDY, S/o Late N.Rama Reddy Aged about 59 years, R/o Dachur Village, Kaluvai Mandalam, Nellore District 2. Nandyala Gowtham,, S/o N.Venkateswarlu Reddy, Aged about 26 years, R/o Dachur Village, Kaluvai Mandalam, Nellore District. ...Petitioners AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHV, Represented by its Principal Secretary Water Resources Department 4th Block, 1st Floor Room No.216, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, Nellore Collectorate, Nellore District. 3. The Chief Engineer, N.T.R. Telugu Ganga Project, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District-- 517 644. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Telugu Ganga project, S.S.L.C and S.B.Circle, Nellore ...Respondents 2 Counsel for the Petitioners: M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 26307 of 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings in File No.COLNLR-ASEC0RP2 (CAMT)/21/2024-Admin A2, dated 24.08.2024 issued by the District Collector in rejecting the case of the petitioners for including the name of the 2nd petitioner at Sl.No.94 of First Seniority List in place of Sri Nandyala Bhaskar Reddy (died) and in not granting employment to the 2nd petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, as illegal, arbitrary, and for a consequential prayer to direct the respondents to provide employment to the 2nd petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are residents of Dachur Village, Kaluvai Mandalam of Nellore District, which was acquired by the Government for foreshore submersion under Kandaleru Reservoir of Telugu Ganga project. Pursuant to the Notification dated 06.11.1989 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the properties belonging to joint family of the petitioners, standing in the name of the mother of the 1st petitioner, namely, Smt.Nandyala Ramamma, were acquired, and Award No.40/90 dated 25.01.1990 was passed. It is further stated that, in respect of displaced persons affected by irrigation projects, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, providing for employment to at least one member of each displaced family or their children. In pursuance of the said scheme, the brother of the 1st petitioner applied for employment and was 4 placed at Sl.No.94 in the list. While the same was under consideration, unfortunately, he died a premature death on 28.09.2009 at the age of 35 years, without being provided employment. 3. Subsequent to his death, an application was submitted on behalf of the 2nd petitioner, who is the son of the 1st petitioner and grandson of the original awardee, seeking employment under the said scheme. As the respondents failed to consider the representation of petitioners for providing employment to the 2nd petitioner, petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.2039 of 2024. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 30.01.2024, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners. Pursuant thereto, the respondents passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the 2nd petitioner on the ground that he, being the grandson of the original awardee, namely, Nandyala Ramamma, is not entitled to employment under the said scheme. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.586 of 2022. This Court, after elaborately considering the said matter and placing reliance on the judgment in W.A.No.1387 of 2011, dated 02.02.2012, wherein the authorities had extended the benefit of employment to one Sri P. Lavanyachari, who was a 5 grandson of the original awardee in similar circumstances, held that non- extension of such benefit to the petitioner amounts to discrimination. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order was set aside by this Court directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner therein for employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. It is further submitted that the said order was challenged by the Government in W.A.No.667 of 2022. The Division Bench, upon elaborate consideration, dismissed the writ appeal, holding that the reliance placed by the appellant– Government on the judgment dated 02.02.2012 in W.A.No.1387 of 2011 would not render any assistance, and upheld the decision of the learned single judge. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the common judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1289 of 2023 and W.A.No.315 of 2024, dated 19.11.2025, whereunder, in respect of the very same village and the very same acquisition proceedings, the case of the petitioners, which was refused to be considered by the learned Single Judge, was set aside by the learned Division Bench, directing the respondents to provide employment to the petitioners under the displaced persons quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: 10. Accordingly, the W.A.No.315 of 2024 is allowed with the following directions: (i) The order, dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(AT) No.47 of 2021 is hereby set aside by restoring the Government Memo No.641/R&R-A2/2012-2, dated 26.12.2014; 6 (ii) (ii) The respondent Nos.2 to 5 in W.A.No.315 of 2024 shall provide employment to the appellants under displaced persons quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 as per their turn; 11. The writ appeal in W.A.No.1289 of 2023 is disposed of with the following directions: The appellant shall include the name of the respondent/writ petitioner in the first seniority list by following due process and shall provide employment to him under displaced persons quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 as per his turn. 8. Per contra, the respondents have filed counter affidavit, reiterating the contents of the impugned order, contending that as per the scheme of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, the candidates eligible for appointment under this scheme shall be displaced persons or his or her son, daughter or spouse, without being no other earning member in the family, and 50% of the vacancies of the categories equivalent to junior assistants or typists and the cadres below arising in major and medium irrigation and power projects shall be filled up by the displaced family or their dependents of respective project duly following the reservation for various categories. Thus, the employment is provided to the displaced families or their dependents. In the instant case, the 2nd petitioner is not the son of the original awardee but only the grandson, as such, he is not entitled for any appointment under the above said government scheme. It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that certain other candidates were considered for appointment pursuant to directions issued by this Court in earlier cases, and the petitioners herein were advised to approach this Court for similar relief. 7 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the scheme under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 is intended to provide employment to displaced families or their dependents. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the land acquired belonged to the joint family of the petitioners and that the brother of the 1st petitioner, being a member of the displaced family, was included in the waiting list at Sl.No.94 for the purpose of employment. However, he died during the pendency of the said list, without being provided employment. 10. In such circumstances, the 2nd petitioner, being a member of the same joint family is entitled to be considered for employment under the said scheme. Therefore, the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the claim of the 2nd petitioner on the sole ground that he is the grandson of the original awardee is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned proceedings in File No.COLNLR-ASEC0RP2(CAMT)/21/2024-Admin A2, dated 24.08.2024 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner for providing employment under displaced persons category in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 98, dated 15.04.1986 by placing the 2nd petitioner at Sl.No.94 in the displaced persons list. 8 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 29.07.2026 Dvs Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned ☑ Reportable ☑ Non-reportable 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 237 WRIT PETITION NO: 26307/2024 Dt:29.07.2026 Dvs