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

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15673

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
S. Gopala Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 10035/2016



##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:7647

1

APHC010059842016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 10035 OF 2016

Between:

1. S. Gopala Rao, S/o.S.Subba Rao, Aged 26 years, R/o.D.No.17-76,

Damerla Vari Street, (via) Vijayawada, Kondapalli, Krishna District.

...Petitioner

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Irrigation (Projects Wing) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation, Corporation, Rep. by its

Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

4. The Chief Engineer, Dr.Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station (VTPS),

Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

...Respondents

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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in

the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 1st

Respondent in issuing impugned G.O.Ms. No. 98, dated 15-04-1986

conferring benefit of employment only to the displaced person, son,

daughter and spouse, thereby denying grandson or other members of the

##PAGE2##

2026:APHC:7647

2

family, who are dependants on the land so acquired for the purpose of

public projects and consequential action of the Respondents 2 to 4 in

denying employment to the petitioner under Land Looser Category only

on the ground that petitioner is grandson as highly illegal, arbitrary,

violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, and to pass such

order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit just and proper in the

circumstances of this case.

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 12677 OF 2016

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 to consider the petitioner for

employment under Land Looser Category in any posts of Security Guard /

Fireman any other suitable post, as vacancies are existing under the 4th

Respondent without rejecting the claim of the petitioner only on the

ground that the petitioner is grandson pending disposal of the above writ

petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in

the circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the Petitioner: G V SHIVAJI

Counsel for the Respondents: Nagaraju Naguru Standing Counsel

For APGENCO

Counsel for the Respondents:K.KRISHNABUSHAN CHOWDARY SC

For APGENCO

Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP)

The Court made the following order:

##PAGE3##

2026:APHC:7647

3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION No.10035 OF 2016

ORDER:

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one

in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned

action of the 1st Respondent in issuing impugned G.O.Ms.

No. 98, dated 15-04-1986 conferring benefit of employment

only to the displaced person, son, daughter and spouse,

thereby denying grandson or other members of the family,

who are dependants on the land so acquired for the

purpose of public projects and consequential action of the

Respondents 2 to 4 in denying employment to the petitioner

under Land Looser Category only on the ground that

petitioner is grandson as highly illegal, arbitrary, violative of

Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, and to pass …..”

2. Heard Sri K.Bharat Kumar, learned counsel representing

Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Standing Counsel for APGENCO appearing for the respondents.

3. When the matter is called for hearing, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that though they raised several assertions in the

writ petition, as per the instructions of hi

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 Back to top