Andhra Pradesh High Court

WP/16881/2015 of G. Venkata Rama Chandra Raju, Vs The District Collecter, West Godavari, Eluru on 29 January 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION NO: 16881/2015 Between: 1. G. VENKATA RAMA CHANDRA RAJU,,

APHC010521012015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

WRIT PETITION NO: 16881/2015

Between:

1. G. VENKATA RAMA CHANDRA RAJU,, S/O RAMA KRISHNAM RAJU

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O CHINAMIRAM,

BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

2. G. PURUSHOTHAMA RAJU,, S/O RAMA KRISHNAM RAJU AGED

ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O CHINAMIRAM, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

3. G. NAGAMANI,, W/O VENKATA SRI RAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 40

YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O CHINAMIRAM, BHIMAVARAM

MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

4. G. PADMA PRATYUSHAPALLAVI,, D/O VENKATA SRI RAMA RAJU

BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

5. G. ANASUYAMMA,, W/O RAMA KRISHNAM RAJU AGED ABOUT 60

YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O CHINAMIRAM, BHIMAVARAM

MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

6. G. UDAY KIRAN VARMA,, S/O VENKATA RAMA CHANDRA RAJU

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O CHINAMIRAM,

BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTER WEST GODAVARI ELURU, -

2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL

OFFICER, NARSAPUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY,

REVENUE

DEPARTMENT,

SECRETARIAT

BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 toto issue a Writ or Order or Direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order by declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing notice under Sec. 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 vide notice in Rc.No. 2863/2008/B dt. 25.05.2015

which is served to the petitioners on 06.06.2015, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Sec. 9(2) of Act 1 of 1894 and Sec. 21 (2) of Act 30 of 2013 and consequentially declare that the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated to acquire the lands of the petitioners at S.Nos 172/1, 172/2, 172/4, 172/5 and 172/6 over an extent of ac. 9.34 cents of Chinamiram village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District are lapsed IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 21904 OF 2015

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 first and second respondents not to proceed further without complying the mandatory provisions of Sec. 9(2) and 10 of Act 1 of 1894 and Sec. 21 and 22 of Act 30 of 2013 for acquiring the lands of the petitioners in S.Nos. 172/1, 172/2, 172/4, 172/5 and 172/6 over an extent of ac. 9.34 cents of Chinamiram village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP 3711 OF 2016

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 dismiss the writ petition duly vacating the interim orders dt: 16-6-2016 in WP.No.16881/2015

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. O M R LAW FIRM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP)

The Court made the following:

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORDER:

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition has become infructuous and no orders are required to be passed in it.

2. Therefore, recording the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J. Date: 30.01.2026 ARR

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

WRIT PETITION NO: 16881/2015

Date: 30.01.2026

ARR

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead