1. This Writ Petition is filed with the following Prayer:

               “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the re-settlement and rehabilitation (RR) benefits to me and other petitioners as per G.O.Ms.No.68, irrigation & CAD (project Wing- LA-IV-R&R) Department dt. 8-4-2005 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.88, irrigation & CAD (PW:LA:IV-R&R) Department dt. 26-8-2010, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to extend all the benefits to the petitioners under the said G.O, and to pass such other or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Mr. N. Hari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Dara Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Ms. Swathi, learned Assistant Government  Pleader  for  Irrigation  &  Command  Area Development and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are eligible for re-settlement and rehabilitation benefits (for short 'R&R benefits) that in the first list (initial gazette notification dated 23.02.2010), petitioner Nos.2, 4 and their father were shown as eligible persons for receiving R&R benefits. But, in the subsequent list (subsequent gazette notification dated 13.02.2015) their names were not shown, they stood deleted and the R&R benefits are not granted to them. It is the case of petitioners that objections were raised to the final list on the ground that their names were deleted, even though it was brought to the notice of authorities that they were eligible, yet they were not granted benefits.

4. Proceedings of the District Collector dated 23.02.2010 and socio-economic survey details of families of Chegyam Village submitted by the R&R Officer, LA Unit-V, SYP & Dr. BRAPCSSP, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District, Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli were approved for publication in Karimnagar District Gazette and ordered to be published in Extraordinary issue of Karimnagar  District  Gazette  along  with  notification  of  the abstract of R&R benefits of Chegyam Village, Sripada Yellampalli Project with the entire list of the names of the family members and family head. The said proceedings were issued in 23.02.2010.

5. Learned counsel placed reliance on the definition of family in G.O.Ms.No.88 dated 26.08.2010. The amendment made to paragraph No.3.10 (a) of Chapter III (Ex.P1 at Page No.11), the following is the definition of family:

               "1)   Para 3.10 (a) of Chapter-III is replaced with the following:

               3.10 (a): "Family includes a person, his or her spouse, minor sons, minor daughters, minor brothers or minor sisters and other members residing with him and dependent on him for their livelihood. Further each major son and major daughter residing with such person will be treated as a separate family and the cut off date for calculating their age of 18 years will be the date of notification issued under Section 4 (i) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the village as notified under Para 5.1 of this G.O.

               2) The words "appropriate Government" occurring in the first line of Para 5.12 may be read as "District Collector"."

6. Government of Andhra Pradesh Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2005, speaks of the benefits for Project Affected Families, the individuals displaced under the project. It is not in dispute that initial list contained the names of petitioners. Petitioner Nos.2 and 4 are the daughters of Sri Gurram Rajeshwar Reddy. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are children of petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.5 is the husband of petitioner No.4.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, at Page No.46 dated: Nil-01-2016. A perusal of the proceedings indicates that it is a Draft Award proposed as per Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘Act, 2013’). At Page No.49, Sl.Nos.35 and 36, Page No.50, Sl.Nos.64 and 65, names of petitioner Nos.2 and 4 and their father i.e., petitioner No.2 (at Sl.No.35 and 65), petitioner No.4 (at Sl.No.36) and their father (at Sl.No.64) are shown. The very award is a draft award proposed.

8. In the gazette notification dated 23.02.2010, which is annexed as part of documents to counter affidavit at Page No.133, Sl.Nos.25 and 27 reflect the names of petitioner Nos.2 and 4, in the column of remarks, it is shown that they are not residing in the village.

9. Reliance is placed on a judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.34439 of 2012, it is trite to extract the relevant portion of the judgment, which reads as follows:

               “A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4. The sum and substance of the counter- affidavit is that as the petitioners have left their villages even prior to the acquisition of their properties, they do not fall under the definitions of ‘Project affected families’ or ‘Project displaced families’.

               The petitioners have filed a copy of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2005, (for short “the R & R Policy, 2005”), in pursuance of which G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 08.04.2005, was issued. Clause 3.16 of the said Policy defined ‘Project affected family’ as under: -

               “a family whose source of livelihood are substantially affected by the process of acquisition of land for the project and who has been residing continuously for a period of not less than three years preceding the date of declaration of the affected zone or practicing any trade, occupation or vocation continuously for a period of not less than three years in the affected zone, preceding the date of declaration of the affected zone, regardless of the fact whether they owned land or not.”

               Clause-3.17 of the said Policy defined ‘Project Displaced family’ as under:

               “Any family, who on account of acquisition of his dwelling house in the village in the affected zone for the purpose of the project, has been displaced from such dwelling house.”

               The only substantive plea of the respondents as recorded in the counter-affidavit is that as the petitioners have left their native villages even before they were affected by the project, they do not satisfy the definitions of ‘Project affected family’ or ‘Project Displaced family’. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this plea is based on sub-clause-(a) of Clause-3.16 of the R & R Policy, 2005. As evident from the said clause, the same contains four sub-clauses. While undoubtedly, Clause-(a) prescribes that a family must have been residing continuously for a period of not less than three years or practicing any trade, occupation or vocation continuously for a period of not less than three years in the affected zone, preceding the date of declaration of the affected zone, regardless of the fact whether they owned land or not, Clause-(b) prescribes a different criterion viz., if a family lost more than 50% of land under acquisition and is left with below Ac.5-00 of dry land or Ac.2.50 cents of wet land or combination of both, the same shall also be treated as “Project affected family”.

               In other words, each sub-clause of Clause-3.16 of the R & R Policy, 2005, is independent of each other and to qualify for being termed as “Project affected family”, it is not necessary for a family to satisfy all the sub-clauses cumulatively and it will suffice if it satisfies one or the other sub-clauses of Clause- 3.16.

               As regards the plea of the respondents that the petitioners do not fall under the definition of “Project displaced family”, the only basis for this plea is that the petitioners have left their native villages much before the acquisition for the project was made.

               The petitioners have submitted in the reply-affidavit that due to threat from extremists, they were advised by the Police to leave the Villages to safer places and that elderly family members such as the petitioners’ parents continued to live in the Village till the houses were submerged.

               In my opinion, having identified the petitioners in the socio economic survey for extending the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 08.04.2005, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to ignore the said survey.

               It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that proper survey was not conducted and the petitioners were not identified by applying the R & R Policy, 2005. It is also not their case that the Gazette notification has been either cancelled or withdrawn. So long as the Gazette notification remained in existence, it is not permissible for the respondents to deny the petitioners the benefits flowing under G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 08.04.2005.”

10. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the case. In the present case, a socio-economic survey was conducted and a gazette notification was published on 23.02.2010 in which the names of the petitioners were shown. But, on objections by the villagers an enquiry was conducted with respect to eligibility of the persons named for R&R benefits in the first list published (gazette). Out of the 1276 PAFs/PDFs, whose names were published in the first gazette (list), certain names on enquiry and verification were deleted from the first list of gazette covering an amount of Rs.2,94,28,000/- i.e., 337 PAFs/PDFs came to be deleted. The names of eligible PAFs/PDFs came to be published in the subsequent   gazette   notification   i.e.,   13.02.2015.   This notification in which the names of the petitioners stood deleted is not under challenge. What is relied upon for seeking benefits are the proceedings dated: Nil-01-2016. The gazette notification issued in 2010 (first notification) stands eclipsed by the subsequent notification i.e., notification of 2015. Reliance placed on proceedings dated: Nil-01-2016 is misconceived, they appear to be different proceedings, unconnected to the list of the gazette notification. It pertains to an acquisition of Ac.20.16 guntas of land.

11. A counter affidavit is filed by the Special Deputy Collector, LA, R&R and Irrigation Projects, Jagtial, the contents of the counter affidavit are as follows:

               “3. It is respectfully submitted that The Government of Andhra Pradesh has notified the Chegyam Village of Velgatoor Mandal as fully submerged under Sripada Yellampally Project as per G.O Ms. No. 20, I&CAD (PW: LA. IV-R&R) Department, Dt: 03.02.2009. The Special Collector, LA, SRSP, SSP and JCRGLIP, Tarnaka, Hyderabad has approved Draft Notification U/Sec. 4(1) and Draft Declaration U/Sec. 6 of the LA Act, 1894 for (944) Structures situated at Chegyam Village of Velgatoor Mandal.

               4. It is submitted that the District Collector, Karimnagar has approved that the PAFs and PDFs pertaining to Chegyam village of Velgatoor mandal and published in Gazette which are coming under submergence of Sripada Yellampalli Project. According to the instructions contained in para-5.8 of Chapter- V of G.O.Ms.No.68, dt 8.4.2005 as amended by G.O.Ms.No. 120, dt. 26.06.2006, the District Administration shall publish the final details of survey in the District Gazette within (45) days from the date of receipt of recommendations of the Project Administrator and such publication shall also be published in the Gram Panchayat concerned. That a list of (1276) PAF's & PDF's entitled for R&R benefit were prepared and Socio economic survey (SES) gazette was published vide Proc. No G1/852/2010, Dt 23.02.2010.

               5. It is submitted that a list of (1276) PAF's & PDF's entitled for R&R benefit were prepared and Socio economic survey (SES) gazette was published. During the distribution of R&R benefits to the PAF's and PDF's certain objection were raised by the beneficiaries/Villagers regarding the entitlement of the R&R benefits. After conducting a detailed enquiry, (337) PAF's/ PDF's were found not eligible due to not residing in the village and these persons were rejected/deleted from the Socio economic survey (SES) Gazette. Same has been approved by the then District Collector, Karimnagar and published in Karimnagar District Gazette vide Proc. No G1/852/2010, Dt13.02.2015.

               6. It is submitted that, in the present instance the petitioners (02) and (04) are the daughters of Sri late Gurram Rajeshwar Reddy & Smt Gurram Amruthamma. Both these petitioners (Smt. Baddam Manjula & Baddam Sujana) got married and not residing in the village and their names were not existing in the final Gazette but their parents Sri late Gurram Rajeshwar Reddy & Smt Gurram Amruthamma names are existing in SES gazette with SSP No 325 and R&R benefits was paid to them thorough Cheque No 477765, dt:24-04-2013.

               7. The petitioners Smt. Baddam Manjula & Baddam Sujana names were existing in (337) deletion list as their names were deleted citing the reason that they were not residing in the village. The (337) deletion list was approved by the then District Collector, Karimnagar, after removing these (337) PDF's /PAF's, the remaining beneficiary's list was published in Karimnagar Gazette. The petitioners (1) and (3) are the sons of the petitioner no (2) and the petitioner no (5) is the husband of petitioner no (4). As the petitioner names were got deleted from final SES gazette it can establish that the Petitioner no 1,3,5 names not present in final SES gazette list because they were not residents of Chegyam Village. Therefore no R&R benefit was paid to these (05) petitioners.”

12. It is trite to take note of the proceedings dated 13.02.2015 issued by the office of Collector, Karimnagar, (Page No.129 of the counter affidavit). The contents reflect, that due to objections by villagers regarding the entitlement of R&R benefits, an enquiry was conducted in the village and (337) PAFs/PDFs not eligible due to not residing in the village and certain names published double were rejected. The contents of the proceedings are as follows:

               “The Government vide G.Os. 1st and 3rd read above have approved and communicated the instructions relating to the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy to be followed in respect of the village coming under the submergence of irrigation projects.

               In the reference 4th read above, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli who is R&R Officer for Sripada Yellampalli Project has submitted the final list of families affected (PAFs/PDFs) according to the socio economic survey for providing benefits under R&R policy relating to Potyala village of Ramagundam mandal which are coming under submergence of Sripada Yellampalli Project after publication of the draft list and after finalization of the claims & objections.

               As provided under para-5.7 of Chapter-V of G.O.Ms.No.68, dt. 8.4.2005 as amended by G.O.Ms. No.73, dt. 3.2.2007, the Project Administrator R&R, Sripada Yellampalli Project & Joint Collector, Karimnagar has submitted his remarks and recommendations to the District Administration i.e. District Collector, Karimnagar for approval.

               According to the instructions contained in para-5.8 of Chapter-V of G.O.Ms.No.68, dt. 8.4.2005 as amended by G.O.Ms.No. 120, dt. 26.06.2006, the District Administration shall publish the final details of survey in the District Gazette within (45) days from the date of receipt of recommendations of the Project Administrator and such publication shall also be published in the Gram Panchayat concerned.

               Therefore, in ref.5th read above, the socio economic survey list for providing benefits under R&R policy relating to chegyam village of velgatoor mandal which is coming under submergence of Sripada Yeilampalli Project has been approved and published.

               The RDO Peddapalli in the ref. 6th read above, has submitted that during the distribution of the R&R benefits to the PAFs/PDFs, certain objections were raised by the beneficiaries regarding the entitlement of the R&R benefits due to attaining the age of 18-years and above as on 31.12.2010 who became major sons and some other beneficiaries represented that their names are missing in earlier Gazette list. As such detail enquiry has been conducted in the village and finalized the list of families affected for providing benefits under R&R policy and prepared (2) supplementary lists i.e., (1) list of R&R beneficiaries to whom the R&R amount is to be paid. (2) list of R&R beneficiaries to whom the R&R amount has already been paid as per the instructions of the higher officers due to availability of funds since the R&R beneficiaries are eligible though their names were not published in earlier Gazettes so as to shift the R&R beneficiaries to the new R&R colonies.

               The RDO, Peddapally in the reference 7th read above submitted that during the distribution of the R&R benefits to the PAFs/PDFs certain objections were raised by the villagers regarding the entitlement of the R&R benefits. As such detail enquiry has been conducted in the village and (337) PAFs/PDFs are found not eligible due to not residing in the village and the names were also published double. These persons are to be rejected as per the list furnished by the Tahsildar, Velgatoor and the R&R benefits have not been paid to any one of these (337) persons.

               In view of the above RDO, Peddapally has requested to arrange to approve the both lists i.e., deletion list of (337) PAFs/PDFs and supplementary list-I & supplementary list-ll so as to make payment to the eligible beneficiaries of PAFs/PDFs of Chegyam village of Velgatoor mandal.

               Therefore, as recommended by the Project Administrator, R&R & Joint Collector, Karimnagar and in exercise of powers delegated in para-5.8 of Chapter-V of G.O.Ms.No.68, dt. 8.4.2005 as amended by G.O.Ms.No. 120, dt. 26.6.2006, the final details of socio economic survey of the families of Chegyam village submitted by the R&R Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli are hereby approved for publication in Karimnagar District Gazette and ordered to be published in Extraordinary issue of Karimnagar District Gazette along with notification.”

13. Having perused the contents of the proceedings dated 13.02.2015, it is apparent that on enquiry conducted subsequent to the gazette notification dated 23.02.2010, on objections by villagers, led to the issuance of proceedings bearing No.G1/852/2010 dated 13.02.2015 published in Karimnagar District Gazette (Paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit).

14. The deletion of 337 PAFs/PDFs out of 1276 names not residing in the village from the socio-economic survey conducted and gazetted in 2010 came to be approved by the office of Collector. This exercise approved by the District Collector, Karimnagar District and published in the District Gazette 13.02.2015, attained finality. As stated supra, this gazette notification is not under challenge in the present proceedings. Reliance placed on the amendment to the definition of family is of no consequence in the present context as the names of petitioners stood deleted after an enquiry and the list being published in the district gazette.

15. There is no whisper of the subsequent proceedings of the office of Collector bearing No.G1/852/2010 dated 13.02.2015, (Page No.129 of counter affidavit) published in Karimnagar District Gazette in the entire writ affidavit. Proceedings relied upon by the petitioner at Page No.46 are with regard to acquisition of an extent of Ac.20.16 guntas of land, which appear to be unconnected as observed supra. The following are the relevant contents of the Proceedings bearing No.Proc. No.D/175/2009, dated: Nil.01.2016. The contents are as follows:

               “The Executive Engineer, I&CAD, SSP, Division No.1, Ramagundam has furnished a requisition vide his Lr. No. 1/DB/J.T.O.3/102/A/M/42   No.s,   dt:   12-08-2009   for acquisition of an extent of 20-16 acres of land coming under submergence to Sripada Yellampally Project situated in the limits of Chegyam village of Velgatoor Mandal of Karimnagar District.

               Out of which, a block of lands were surveyed and settled u/s 17(b)(ii) of the Survey and Boundaries act. According to the technically scrutinized Sub-Division Record, the area of the lands under acquisition comes to 20-16 acres and the same extent is accepted. The Sy. No. wise details are shown in the table.”

16. Petitioners are trying to seek R&R benefits on the basis of a draft award proposed, dated January, 2016 at Page No.46 of writ papers. Proceedings at Page No.46 are with respect to acquisition of Ac.20.16 guntas of land, which in the opinion of this Court do not pertain to the proceedings dated 13.02.2015. The submissions made on the basis of proceedings of 2016 are misconceived, as it is apparent that they are for acquisition for an extent of Ac.20.16 guntas of land. It is observed that there is no whisper with regard to the gazette notification dated 13.02.2015 in the writ affidavit. Contentions canvassed to connect the contents of the proceedings at Page No.46 for receiving benefits under the gazette notification are misplaced. The proceedings dated: Nil-01-2016 are different, the Executive Engineer, I & CAD, SSP, furnished requisition vide letter dated 12.08.2009 for acquisition of an extent of Ac.20.16 guntas of land coming under submergence. The proceedings under gazette notification dated: 23.02.2010 and the subsequent gazette notification dated: 13.02.2015 are with respect to entire village coming under submergence. A clear distinction is forthcoming in the proceedings dated: Nil-01-2016 (Page No.46 of writ papers), and gazette notification dated: 23.02.2010 (Page No.7 to 127 of counter affidavit of respondent No.5)/subsequent gazette notification dated: 13.02.2015 (Page No.129 to 164 of counter affidavit of respondent No.5), both are not similar. Hence, contentions advanced are misconceived.

17. If this Court were to accept the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner, it would be rewriting the gazette notification (dated 13.02.2015), and its contents without the gazette notification being challenged. As observed supra, there is no whisper or reference to gazette notification dated 13.02.2015 in the affidavit by which the names of the petitioners stood deleted. If the submissions canvassed were to be acceded, it would open a pandora's box, this Court is not inclined to accede to the contentions put forth. The contentions put forth by placing reliance on proceedings dated: Nil-01-2016 are misconceived and this Court is not inclined to show any indulgence for reasons spelled out.

18. Having considered the entire factual matrix of the case, and considering the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petitioners failed to demonstrate that they are eligible for receiving the benefits. Reliance placed on the proceedings dated: Nil-01-2016, are misconceived. Writ Petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.

19. For reasons  aforesaid, writ petition  stands  dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.