Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/30841/2026 of POOLA ANURADHA Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 1 November 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE 2 PRESENT:THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 30841/2026 Between: 1. POOLA ANURADHA, W/O POOLA MAHENDRA, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O. NARASIMHA RAO PALEM VILLAGE, VEERULAPADU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT- 521181. 1. THE UNION OF
APHC010552712026
IN THE
MONDAY, T
PRESENT:THE HONOU
WRIT
Between:
1. POOLA ANURADHA,
R/O. NARASIMHA RA
NTR DISTRICT- 5211
1. THE UNION OF IND
RAILWAYS (RAILWA
NEW DELHI - 110 001
2. THE STATE OF AN
SECRETARY,
REVE
VELAGAPUDI, AMAR
3. THE GENERAL MA
NILAYAM, SECUNDE
4. THE COMPETENT A
COLLECTOR, YERRU
RAILWAY LINE PRO
NEAR P.W.D. GRO
DISTRICT.
5. THE DISTRICT COL
NEAR P.W.D. GROUN
W.P.N
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026
URABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMA
T PETITION NO: 30841/2026
W/O POOLA MAHENDRA, AGED 3
AO PALEM VILLAGE, VEERULAPADU
81.
...PE
AND
IA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINI
AY BOARD), RAIL BHAVAN, RAISIN
1.
NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS P
ENUE
DEPARTMENT,
A.P.
SECR
RAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 238.
ANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILW
ERABAD - 500 025, TELANGANA.
AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITION CU
UPALEM TO NAMBUR STATION (AM
OJECT, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COL
OUNDS, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWA
LLECTOR, NTR DISTRICT, COLLEC
NDS, VIJAYAWADA.
RC,J
No.30841 of 2026
H
ALAPATI
9 YEARS,
MANDAL,
TITIONER
ISTRY OF
NA ROAD,
PRINCIPAL
RETARIAT,
WAY, RAIL
UM JOINT
MARAVATI)
LLECTOR,
ADA, NTR
CTORATE,
RC,J
6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDIGAMA REVENUE
DIVISION, NANDIGAMA, NTR DISTRICT - 521185.
7. THE
DIVISIONAL
FOREST
OFFICER,
NTR
DISTRICT,
AT
VIJAYAWADA.
8. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.
9. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITION CUM JOINT
COLLECTOR, YERRUPALEM TO NAMBUR STATION (AMARAVATI)
RAILWAY LINE PROJECT, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COLLECTOR, NEAR P.W.D. GROUNDS, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR
DISTRICT.
...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring the action of the Respondents in recording only the number of trees on my land, without their girth, height and other particulars and without notice to me, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21
and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents to conduct a fresh enumeration of all trees, plants and other things attached to my land, in my presence and in the presence of Respondent No. 7, 8 and other independent witnesses, recording the species, age, girth, breadth and height of each, and to give me a copy and direct the Respondents to reflect the enumeration in the award and to determine the compensation for the trees and plants by the capitalisation method Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.PATIL YUGANDHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR REVENUE
RC,J
2.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
3.GP FOR FORESTS
4.GP FOR AGRICULTURE
5.BACHINA HANUMANTHA RAO (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent authorities in recording only the number of trees on the petitioner’s land without noting down their girth, height and other particulars.
2. Heard Sri Patil Yugandhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned Central Government Counsel, Sri Pathivada Ramakrishna, learned Government Pleaders for Land Acquisition, and learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Agriculture, Revenue and Forests.
3. Sri Patil Yugandhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, would contend that the authorities without noting down the girth, height and other particulars that are required for determining compensation payable to the petitioner, by noting down number of the trees only are trying to acquire the subject land and if the authorities were allowed to do so the petitioner would not get RC,J
adequate compensation for the existing trees. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.
4. On the other hand, Sri Pathivada Ramakrishna, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, by placing on record the written instructions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, contended that the authorities have addressed letter to the competent authorities with a request to conduct enumeration and enumeration of the trees situated in the acquired land would be conducted in the presence of the land owner duly affording her opportunity to be present at the time of such enumeration and the assessed value upon the report from the concerned authority would be considered in accordance with the applicable provisions. Accordingly, prayed to dispose of the writ petition.
5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The authorities by counting number of trees only without noting the height and girth are trying to acquire the land and in such an eventuality she would not get adequate compensation is the grievance of the petitioner. In view of the submissions made by learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that the land acquisition authorities have already addressed letter to the competent authority and enumeration of trees would be done in the RC,J
presence of the petitioner/land owner, nothing remains for adjudication in the matter.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the authorities to note down the girth, height and other particulars that are essential for assessing the value of the trees in the presence of the petitioner, before removing them. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 2ND November,2026
RR