WA/58/2026 of The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs VIRUVURU PULLAIAH on 31 March 2026

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAND ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR (LA),, GALERU NAGARI SUJALA SRAVANTI (GNSS), KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) (FAC),, TGP-II, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT(S) AND

1. VIRUVURU PULLAIAH, S/O OBLESU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC CULTIVATION R/O CHINNACHOWK KADAPA KADAPA DISTRICT

2. BODDUBOYINA KRISHNAIAHGARI GOPAL DIED, REP BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE BODDUBOYINA KRISHNAIAH, S/O BODDUBOYINA KRISHNAIAHGARI GOPAL AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC.CULTIVATION, R/O.VIDYANAGAR, BADVEL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

3. THOKA LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O THOKA VENKATA SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC.CULTIVATION, R/O.VIDYANAGAR BADVEL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

4. CHINREDDY SREENIVASULA REDDY, S/O SUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC.CUITIVATION R/O.TELUGU GANGA COLONY, BADVEL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

5. B VENKATASUBBA REDDY, S/O VENKATA SUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC CULTIVATION R/O BODISETTIPALLE VILLAGE ATLUR MANDAL YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

6. ADURI CHINNA VEERA REDDY DIED, REP BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ADURI RACHAM REDDY, S/O.BHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT

YEARS, OCC.CULTIVATION,

R/O BODISETTIPALLE VILLAGE, ATLUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

7. VIRUVURU ADILAKSHMAMMA, W/O PEDDA OBULESU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC.CULTIVATION, R/O BODISETTIPALLE VILLAGE, ATLUR MANDAL YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

8. VIRUVURU LAKSHMI NARASAIAH, S/O CHENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC.CULTIVATION R/O BODISETTIPALLE VILLAGE ATLUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

9. MANNEM VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O RANGA REDDY AGED 55 YEARS, OCC.CULTIVATION, R/O BODISETTIPALLE VILLAGE, ATLUR MANDAL YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

10. CHINDREDDY SUBBA LAKSHMAMMA DIED, REP BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE

CHINDREDDY PENCHALA REDDY, S/O.NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC.CULTIVATION, R/O VIDYANAGAR, BADVEL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

11. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): 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 pleased to condone the delay of 178 days in filing the above Writ Appeal against the orders dated.07.05.2025 in WP No. 12553 of 2025 and pass

IA NO: 2 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated.07.05.2025 in WP No.12553 of 2025, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. SITA RAM CHAPARLA

2. GP FOR FORESTS

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

This intra court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is filed challenging the order dated 07.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.12553 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents 2 to 4 therein to take into consideration the inspection notes of the Special Collector (Land Acquisition), GNSS, Kadapa and to pay compensation to the petitioners for missing trees, if any, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

2. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the appellants and Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The State has acquired the private lands of the writ petitioners / respondents for the public purpose of constructing the Somasila Project. After acquiring the land, compensation was fixed for the said lands. However, it is the grievance of the writ petitioners that compensation was not fixed for the missing trees available in the land that was acquired by taking into consideration the inspection notes of the Special Collector (Land Acquisition), GNSS, Kadapa.

4. At the time of hearing the writ petition, it is brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the matter is squarely covered by an order dated 06.01.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.32962 of 2018. As per the said order passed in the said writ petition, the Court has directed the Special Collector and Special Deputy Collector to take into consideration the report dated 26.09.2019 and 06.09.2019 and to pay compensation for the missing trees to the petitioners. The said writ petition was also founded on the similar facts. Therefore, as the learned Single Judge found that it is a covered matter, he has disposed of the present writ petition by the impugned order in terms of the earlier order passed in W.P.No.32962 of 2018. The learned

Single Judge has also directed the Registry to enclose a copy of the said order dated 06.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.32962 of 2018. So, when in a similar writ petition based on similar facts, the Court has already directed the respondents therein to pay compensation for the missing trees to the owners of the land and the writ petitioners / respondents, who are also similarly placed, are also entitled to the similar relief. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of the writ petition in terms of the earlier order. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order warranting our interference in this appeal. It is significant to note that to a pointed question as to whether the State has preferred any appeal against the said earlier order dated 06.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.32962 of 2018, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the State could not even venture to say that an appeal was preferred. In fact, no plea was taken in this writ appeal also stating that an appeal was preferred against the said order dated 06.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.32962 of 2018. Therefore, when the said order has attained finality, there is nothing wrong in the order of the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order in terms of the earlier order as the dispute in the present writ petition is squarely covered by it.

5. Therefore, the writ appeal is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

6. Resultantly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 01.04.2026 ARR

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT APPEAL NO: 58/2026 Date: 01.04.2026

ARR