Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 21439
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J
JAKKAM KOTESWAR RAO – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 3650/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nagaraju N
For the Respondents: GP for Revenue, GP for Irri and CAD
Migration for livelihood does not necessarily disqualify a person from being an 'affected family' under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, provided they meet the criteria specified in relevant government clarifications and circulars.
Headnote:(A) Rehabilitation and Resettlement - Eligibility of Affected Family - Migration for livelihood - Migration of a family to another city for livelihood prior to the cutoff date does not automatically disqualify them from being an "affected family" under Section 3(c)(i) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, especially when government circulars clarify that non-agriculturalists or non-residents can still be declared as Project Affected Families. (Para 8)
(B) Administrative Law - Failure to consider previous recommendations - Ignoring previous proceedings and recommendations of the Sub-Collector and R&R Project Officer without a reasoned order is arbitrary and necessitates a fresh inquiry to ensure principles of natural justice. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to the R&R package under the Act 2013 despite having migrated from the affected area prior to the cutoff date.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim entitlement to r&r compensation based on project displacement and prior administrative recommendations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over whether migration for livelihood prior to the cutoff date disqualifies a person from being an 'affected family'. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. interpretation of 'affected family' under act 2013, noting that migration or non-agricultural status does not necessarily preclude eligibility. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. direction for a fresh inquiry and a reasoned order considering previous recommendations and government circulars. (Para 9 , 10) |
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 appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents failed to pay the compensation amount as per the order Dt06-06-2020 passed by the 5th respondent(Previous Sub-Collector, Kukunoor) in favour of 1st petitioner shown in SI.No.47 inspite of enquiry report submitted by the 6th respondents to pass an award under R R Displaced Family) 5th respondent passed order through ROC N0.IO6/RR/2020, Dt31-05-2021 in favour of the 2nd petitioner shown in Serial No. 138 illegal, irrational, against the principles of natural justice besides violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the amounts under R R package to the petitioners forthwith in the interest of justice under the Project Displaced Family(PDF) and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 pass an award by releasing the amounts under R&R package to the petitioners forthwith in the interest of justice under the Project Displaced Family(PDF) pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass s
The Court made the following:
ORDER
To declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation as per Order dated 06.06.2020 passed by the 5th respondent in favour of the petitioners inspite of enquiry report submitted by the 6th respondent being illegal and arbitrary, the present Writ Petition is filed.
2. Heard Smt K.V.Ramani, learned counsel representing Sri Nagaraju N, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkata Satya Narayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri S Satish Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the writ affidavit submitted that the petitioners are the residents of Kukunoor Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, and as their lands were under Sub Mergeable area for Polavaram Project, they were acquired from the petitioners and they are entitled for R&R package PDF (Project Displaced Family). In the initial enquiry, the 1st petitioner‟s name was recommended for inclusion in the list of beneficiaries for payment of compensation under R&R package, under the proceedings of the Sub Collector, kukunoor Mandal, dated 06.06.2020 wherein his name was listed at Sl.No.47. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner‟s name was also recommended for inclusion of his name in the beneficiaries list under the proceedings of the R&R Project Officer, ITDA, dated 31.05.2021 wherein his name was listed at Sl.No.4. Despite the said recommendations and the proceedings, the officials neither included the names of the petitioners in the list nor paid compensation so far. She further submitted that despite lapse of 5 long years, no further steps have been taken place in that regard. The petitioners are entitled for compensation (R&R package) by virtue of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as „Act, 2013‟). I
