SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(AP) 27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D.RAMESH, J.
Reddi Tatalu, S/o. Late Reddi Sanyasulu and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Revenue (L.A.) Department and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 26677 of 2025
Decided On : 07-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: M. R. S. Srinivas
For the Respondents: GP For Land Acquisition, GP For Revenue, Vivek Chandra Sekhar S., Santhi Chandra SC For APIIC

The petitioners, while entitled to compensation as displaced families, lacked specific rights over the designated land due to absence of mention in the government order, hence the alternative allotment at a different site was legally justified.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 31 and 31(2)(c) - Writ petition challenging the non-provision of rehabilitation and resettlement for land acquisition - Court held that the petitioners, being project displaced families, were entitled to compensation but had no specific claim over designated land at Panchadarla Village as no mention was made about them in G.O.Rt.No.846 dated 07.09.2023. (Paras 2, 17)

(B) Claim to Land - Petitioners contended that the allotment of plots to them at an alternative site was illegal and contrary to the reserved designation of land; court ruled that mandatory compliance with the Act was followed in providing alternatives to the petitioners. (Paras 13, 17)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, residents of Krishnampalem Village, challenged the non-implementation of G.O.Rt.No.846 for their rehabilitation post land acquisition. They were awarded plots at Dibbapalem but contested the legality due to their reservation at Panchadarla.

Findings of Court:
The court found the alternative allotment legally sound as the designated land was deemed infeasible for development, concluding that statutory obligations were met.

Issues: The main issues concerned the right to designate land for rehabilitation under the R&R package and the legality of alternative allotments amid G.O.Rt.No.846.

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that absent specific mention of the petitioners in the government order, they lacked special rights over the reserved land and affirmed the adequacy of the rehabilitation measures undertaken in accordance with statutory requirements.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. rehabilitation and resettlement rights for displaced persons. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. allegations of procedural irregularities in land allotment. (Para 4 , 13 , 14)
3. details of prior land acquisition and rehabilitation efforts. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10)
4. assessment of land feasibility for resettlement purposes. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12)
5. court's decision on the legality of land allotment based on statutory compliance. (Para 15 , 17)
6. final judgment dismissing the writ petition. (Para 18)

ORDER :

All the petitioners are residents of Krishnampalem Village and all are agriculturists and agriculture labours and they are residing at Survey Nos.91/2, 91/1, 84/3, 116/15, 116/20, 89/7, 116/5, 117/17, 95/1, 116/14, 84/2, 94/4, 65/1 and 66/1 of Krishnampalem Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District (present Anakapalli District).

2. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of respondents in not providing rehabilitation and resettlement for acquisition of lands in Krishnampalem Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli District, contrary to G.O.Rt.No.846, Revenue (Lands-IX) Department, dated 07.09.2023.

3. Initially, in the year 2006, a notification was given for acquiring the lands for establishment of start-up area phase-I, VCIC by APIIC. Thereafter, in the year 2008, an award was passed by the 4th respondent vide award No.2, dated 16.02.2008, granting compensation to the petitioners and subsequently, after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act 30 of 2013’) came into force, the authorities have identified the petitioners are displaced persons as their lands were acquired. Accordingly, they are entitled for compensation for resettlement and rehabilitation. Accordingly, the 1st respondent has considered and issued G.O.Rt.No.846 dated 07.09.2023 allotting a land of Ac.32.49 cents of Panchadarla Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli District. Accordingly, the 6th respondent vide proceedings dated 11.10.2023 directed the 7th respondent to prepare the list of beneficiaries and the said land was also reserved for resettlement area for displaced families of the petitioners. Accordingly, the 7th respondent has prepared the eligibility list vide proceedings dated 18.09.2024. But, till date the respondent authorities did not demarcate the plots in those designated R & R lands situated in Panchadarla Village. The 8th respondent has also addressed a letter to the Tahsildar stating that the APIIC has acquired the said resettlement area to provide R & R to Krishnapalem Village displaced families and requested to fix the boundaries of the said resettlement area. However, till date, the process is not done.

4. Surprisingly, on 21.07.2025, some lotteries were drawn in the office of the 8th respondent. The petitioners have questioned the said action and requested to conduct the lottery pertaining to the lands in Panchadarla Village. But, the respondent authorities have conducted a lottery including the petitioners in some other lands which is contrary to G.O.Rt.No.846 dated 07.09.2023. The said action of the 8th respondent is illegal and arbitrary and it cannot defeat the rights in respect of relocate the village at some other place other than the Panchadarla Village. The said action of the respondents is at the behest of local real estate agents and accordingly, the officers have given up the R & R scheme and the land reserved for R & R in Panchadarla Village. In fact, the land designated and reserved resettlement area in Survey Nos.315/1 and 2, 316/1 and 317-1 of Panchadarla Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli District is suitable for residential purpose. Though the petitioners have raised objections with regard to the allotment of plots by way of a lottery other than the reserved place, despite the same, the Zonal Manager of APIIC has conducted lottery in respect of allotment of plots in different villages which is contrary to G.O.Rt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top