WP/10223/2026 of CHODISETTY NIRMALATHA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 6 May 2026

1. CHODISETTY NIRMA 17-10/2, SIVANANDA (NTR) DISTRICT, AN

1. THE STATE OF AND SECRETARY, REV A.P. SECRETARIAT DISTRICT-522237.

2. A.P.CAPITAL REGION REP. BY ITS COM MANDAL, GUNTUR D

3. DISTRICT COLLEC GUNTUR DISTRICT,

4. SPECIAL DEPUTY ACQUISITION OFFIC TADEPALLI MANDAL 522237.

5. JOINT COLLECTOR GUNTUR DISTRICT,

WP HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURY PETITION No: 10223 of 2026 ALATHA, W/O. CH. MANMADHA RAO, A STREET, LABBIPET VIJAYAWADA, DHRA PRADESH - 520010. ...PE AND DHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECI VENUE (LAND ACQUISITION) DEPA T, VELAGAPUDI,

AMARAVATI, N DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (A P MISSIONER, RAYAPUDI VILAGE, DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522237 CTOR/APPROPRITE AUHTORITY, ANDHRA PRADESH- 522004. Y COLLECTOR/THE COMPETENT CER LAO, UNIT No.9, PENUMAKA L, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA P R, / PROJECT ADMINSTRATOR, ANDHRA PRADESH- 522004 ...RESPON NJS, J P_10223_2026

YA R/O. 39- KRISHNA TITIONER AL CHIEF ARTMENT, GUNTUR C R D A), THULLUR

7. GUNTUR, T LAND VILLAGE, PRADESH- GUNTUR, NDENT(S):

NJS, J WP_10223_2026

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. Mr.VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

NJS, J WP_10223_2026

The Court made the following order: Heard Mr.K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents on the earlier occasions.

2. The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“……to declare the action of the answering respondents herein, more particularly respondent Nos.2 to 5 in issuing the order vide proceedings Rc.01/2026-CRDA (Admn)-Penumaka dated 08.04.2026, rejecting the preliminary objections filed by the petitioner herein and thereafter issuing Form- VII declaration vide Rc.No.01/2026-CRDA (Admn.) dated 11.04.2026 under Section 19 of Act 30 of 2013 read with Rule 25 (1) of RFCTLARR Rules, 2014, to acquire lands for the purpose of construction and formation of E3-(Seed Access Road) in the Amaravati Capital City Area, without conducting the mandatory enquiry under Section 15 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and without according an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the petitioners’ rights under Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and its Rules and consequently set aside the proceedings Rc.01/2026-CRDA (Admn)-Undavalli dated 08.04.2006 ; Form-VII declaration vide Rc.No.01/2026-CRDA (Admn) dated 11.04.2026 under Section 19 of Act 30 of 2013 read with Ruel 25 (1) of RFCTLARR Rules, 2014, while making it clear that without full-fledged hearing, such orders cannot be passed by the respondents herein and pass such other orders……”

3. Several contentious issues were raised on behalf of the petitioner with reference to the conduct of proceedings under Section 15 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

NJS, J WP_10223_2026

Resettlement Act, 2013 as also consequential proceeding impugned in the present writ petition.

4. This Court during the course of hearing after perusing the material on record expressed a prima facie view that the 4th respondent has not afforded adequate opportunity to the petitioner and forwarded his report dated 26.03.2026 to the 3rd respondent, on the basis of which, the impugned proceedings were issued.

5. At that stage, the learned Advocate General has proposed that opportunity of hearing to the petitioner would be afforded and the impugned proceedings, in view of the same, would also be withdrawn so as to enable the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the basis of report submitted by the 4th respondent after hearing the petitioner. He also suggested that the hearing would be conducted on 13.05.2026 at 3-00 p.m., in the office of the 4th respondent.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner agreed for the proposal made by the learned Advocate General.

7. In the light of the above stated position, this Court, without going into the various contentions raised in the writ petition, is inclined to dispose of the same with the following order:

NJS, J WP_10223_2026

1) The petitioner shall attend the hearing scheduled to be conducted on 13.05.2026 at 3.00 p.m., without fail and avail the opportunity of presenting their case / submitting objections.

2) In the event, the petitioner is not in a position to represent her case in person, she may, with proper authorization, get the submissions made through representative on her behalf;

3) After hearing the parties concerned, the 4th respondent shall submit his report to the 3rd respondent, on the basis of which, the 3rd respondent shall issue appropriate proceedings /orders, in accordance with the Law.

8. In view of the submission made by the learned Advocate General with regard to withdrawal of the impugned proceedings, needful shall be done immediately.

9. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Dt. 07 .05.2026 BLV

NJS, J WP_10223_2026

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT PETITION No: 10223 of 2026 Date: 07.05.2026 BLV