(Prayer: 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondent No.3 vide Speaking Order SE/NTR TGP/KDP/AB/EC-5/414M dated 04-08-2025 as per se being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional, contrary to the GO. Ms. No. 45 dated 04-07- 2012 and GO Ms. No. 98 dated 15-04-1986 and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Speaking Order SE/NTR TGP/KDP/AB/EC-5/414M dated 04-08-2025 issued by the respondent no.3 and further direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of displaced persons quota by substituting the name of the petitioner with the name of his father at serial no. 206 and to provide employment in the suitable post in terms of GO Ms. No. 98 dated 15- 04-1986 and GO. Ms. No. 45 dated 04-07-2012.

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 consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in terms of GO Ms. No. 98 dated 15-04-1986 by suspending the Speaking Order: SE/NTR TGP/KDP/AB/EC-5/414M dated 04-08-2025 issued by the respondent no.3pending disposal of the writ petition.)

1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 passed by Respondent No.3 vide Speaking Order SE/NTR TGP/KDP/AB/EC-5/414M rejecting the case of the Petitioner for appointment under Land Losers’ Quota as provided under G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The land of father of the Petitioner was acquired for the purpose of Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Reservoir (SPVBR) of Telugu Ganga Project vide Land Acquisition Award No.29/84, dated 10.11.1984 and Award No.23/87, dated 31.07.1987 respectively. The name of the father of Petitioner was included at Sl.No.206 of the List of Eligible Employed Displaced Persons under SPVB Reservoir issued by the Special Deputy Collector (L.A), Telugu Ganga Project, Cuddapah and the Displaced Certificate was also issued by the Tahsildar, B. Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District on 27.05.2013.

3. As the case of the Petitioner was not being considered for providing employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, the Petitioner filed O.A. before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “A.P.A.T”). Later, in the year 2018 on abolition of A.P.A.T, said O.A was transferred to this Court and the same was re-numbered as WP (AT) No.1607 of 2021. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide Order dated 07.03.2024 directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

4. Subsequently, Respondent No.3 was called for furnishing necessary information and the Tahsildar, B. Battam submitted a report on 26.09.2024 stating that the Petitioner is eligible for employment vide G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986, despite the same, the impugned order came to be passed on the ground that the list prepared by the Special Deputy Collector (LA), which was relied upon by the Petitioner, cannot be taken into consideration, as it is not prepared by a competent person. Apart from that, the other reason for rejecting the case of the Petitioner is that the application was filed by the Petitioner on 04.12.2023 to substitute his name in place of his father’s name in the impugned list. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the issue of cut-off date is not applicable to the Petitioner and he relies upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.356 of 2023, dated 17.11.2025, wherein the Division Bench of Court had opined that one year period from the date of displacement does not apply to the family of displaced persons, who are displaced prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986. Apart from that the learned counsel for Petitioner submits that as there is no dispute with regard to loss of land for the purpose of Project mentioned above, the Petitioner is bound to be considered for employment as provided under G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the Respondents on instructions submits that the claim of Petitioner will be re-considered.

7. Heard the learned counsels.

8. There is no dispute to the fact that the land of the father of the petitioner was acquired as Awards were also passed. The promise of employment under G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 is to be construed as a facet of compensation for land acquisition and the same cannot be whittled down by trivial objections as made in this case. The one year time frame for making applications for employment from the date of displacement cannot be construed as an absolute time frame considering the purport of the G.O., The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.356 of 2023 echoed a similar opinion. The Paragraph 15.1 is extracted below;

                  “15. Before parting with this order, we intend to place the following observations on record: (i) The Governments itself framing the policies for providing jobs to the displaced persons whose lands were acquired for various public purposes, to ventilate the grievances and the hardships being faced by them with a laudable intention by making certain promises to those displaced persons. Then, it is the duty and responsibility of the State Authorities to fulfill the promises made in such policies without raising any technicalities or on flimsy grounds. What the State authorities have to consider is (1) whether the applicant is really displaced person or dependant of the displaced family or 25 not? (2) Whether the candidate is eligible and suitable as per the respective schemes? Besides this, it is the duty and responsibility of the State Authorities to fulfill all promises made to the displaced persons within time frame to provide immediate rehabilitation to them to overcome from the hardships they have to face immediately after displacement from their lands.”

9. Coming to the objection that list of displaced persons prepared by the Special Deputy Collector as he is not competent is not at all relevant. The issues to be considered as mentioned above is (i) whether the land is acquired; and (ii) whether the claimant is a dependent on the land loser or not. As mentioned above, the same is not in dispute, and therefore this objection cannot be sustained. The other objection that Petitioner is seeking substitution in place of his father after long lapse of time is misplaced, as the inability to provide employment even after these years would only reflect on the failed promises of the Respondents. Generations seem to change, but employment is not in sight.

10. The Respondents could also consider providing employment to the claimants on outsourcing/temporary/ad hoc basis till employment is provided under G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 rather than keeping the claimants in eternal wait.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions;

                  (i) The impugned order dated 04.08.2025 passed by Respondent No.3 vide Speaking Order SE/NTR TGP/KDP/AB/EC-5/414M is hereby set-aside;

                  (ii) The Respondents shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for employment under G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986;

                  (iii) No order as to costs.

12. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.