The High Court · 2025

Rl-S^."_"I.,^ll,lS?tion p9Ot,. State of T.S., The Stare of Telangana, Rep.by its Pflncrpal Secretary, lffigation^and CAD Department, Ser;retarilt, HyOer)ba'0. lhe ljrstrict Collector / Chairman, Dislrict Sele.ticn Com'rnittee For Rehabilitation displaced persons, Nirmal District, Telan rana State. Ihe Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, Sri Ram Saga,: project (SRSp). M J. Road, Hyderabad. Superintending. Engineer, Godavari Valley Circl,r No..1. Sriram Sagar fh-e - Project, Pocfampadu, Balakonda Mandal. ADILABAD District, Telanga-na State ...RESPONDENTS Petition under pnricre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropnate writ, order or direction mrrre particularly one in the nature of writ of fi,4andamus decraring the Memo no.E22lE2lNZBr2gs3 daled 5.12.2017 ot the respondent No.4 herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the settled principles of law and violative of artrcles .14 and 2l of the constitution of lndia and consequen y direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for any suitabre post under disp aced persons quota l by way of including the petitioners name in the seniority list in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15-4-1986 under displaced persons quota lA NO: 't OF 20'18 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 suspend the Memo No.E227lE2lNZBl2853 dated 5.12.2011 ot the respondent No,4 herein to the extent of the petitioner forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by including the petitioner name in the seniority list, Nizamabad pending disposal of main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU FOR M/s. N. NAGAVANI PRASOONA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. B. ANNAPOORNA, AGP FOR SERVICES I W.P. NO: 15267 OF 2018 Between: Gummula Ashok, S/o.Laxmaiah, age 44 years, Occ unemployee, R/o. H.No.2- 7-70 Bestavaripet, Rajura Village, Lokeswaram Mandal, Niramal District ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 4 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, lrrigatron and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The District Collector / Chairman District Selection Committee For Rehabilitation, displaced per, The District Collector / Chairman District Selection Committee For Rehabilitation, displaced persons, Nirmal District, Telangana State. The Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, Sri Ram Sagar Prolect (SRSP), tM.J. Road, Hyderabad. The Superintending Engineer, Godavari Valley Circle No.1 , Sriram Sagar Project, Pochampadu, Balakonda Mandal, ADILABAD District, Telangana State. ...REspoNDENrs Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the fvlemo NO.t227lE2lNZBl2852 daled 5.12.2017 of the respondent No.4 herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, .,4+ t I -l contrary to the settred principres of raw and viorative of rrticres 14 and 21 0r the Constitution of lndia and c onsequently direct the resp,rndents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for any suitable post under Cisplaced persons quota by way of including the petitioners name in the se niority list in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 1S_4_1986 under displaced persons quota lA NO: 1 oF 2018 Petrtion under Sectjon .lSi CpC praying that in th€r circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Oourt may be pleased to suspend the Memo NO.E227lE2lNZBlZgS2 dated 5.1Z.ZO11 of the respondent No.4 herein to the extent of the petitioner forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by lncluding the petitioner name in the seniority list, ADTLABAD pending drsposai of main writ petrtion Counset for the petitioner: M/s. N. NAGAVANI PRASOONA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. B. ANNAPOORNA, AGp FOR SERVICES I w.P. NO 15283 0 F 2018 Between: i :stBfl -:i3,?i):t!3i R?ffi, 6?iiii, o* unemployee, R/ o. Sanghvi ...PETITIONER The State of lelanoana. Rep.by its principal Secre:ary. t.rigation and CAD uepartment Secretariat, Hyderabad. i;,r.frp;i*fl*t"i*+,*["s:.*i;:f !lia"i.,r*I",^i.,, IiE.i:,8:ii',1*,f "9,i,:i!"f,"ii:""lJ",l"J,Siit[1J+":.,,f J,,f,ffi AND

4. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lrd a praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction rt.re particularly one in the nature of writ of [,4andamus declaring the [\,4emo No.E227lE2lNZBl2g50 dated ...RESPONDENTS d# s )

5.12.2017 of the respondent No.4 herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the settled principles of law and vrolative of articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by way of including the petitioners name in the seniority list in terms of G.o.Ms.No.9g dated 1 5-4-1986 under displaced persons quota lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 suspend the Memo No.E227lE2lNZBl2850 dated 5.12.2017 of the respondent No.4 herein to the extent of the petitioner forlhwith consider the case of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by including the petitioner name in the seniority list, ADILABAD pending disposal of main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU FOR Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. B. ANNAPOORNA, AGp FOR SERVTCES I M/s. N. NAGAVANI PRASOONA W.P. NO: 15357 OF 2018 Between: U. Rukmeshwar Rao, S/o.Abeda Rao, age 41 years, Occ. unemployee, R/o H.No.11-7 Sanghvi Village, Dilawarpur Mandal, Nirmal District. AND 1

4. ...PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The District Collector / Chairman District Selection Committee For Rehabilitation, displaced persons, Nirmal District, Telanqana State. The Adminiskator-cum-Chief Engineer, Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSp), M.J. ifr3t,flpfiEp"?|is Ensineer, Godavari Valey circre No 1, sriram sasar Project, Pochampadu, Batakonda Mandal, ADILABAD Distiict, Tetangina State ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo NO.E2ZT|E2|NZB|28S1 C 6 dated 5.12.20i 7 of the respondent No.4 herein as arbitra_y, illegal, unjust, contrary to the set'ed principres of raw and viorative of articres .r4 and 21 0f the constitution of rndia and consequenry direct the respondenls to consider the candidature of the petit oner for any suitable post under displaoed persons quota by way of including the petitioners name in the seniority ist in terms of G.O.lVls No.98 dated 15_4_1986 under displaced persons quota lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circurlsitances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nay be pleased to suspend the Memo No.E227 tE2rNzB/2851 dated 5.12.2017 ()f the respondent No.4 herein to the extent of the petrtioner forthwith consider- the case of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by including the petitioner name in the seniority list, Nizamabad pending disposal of main writ petition Counset for the petitioner: SRt. pRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU FOF. counserror the Respondents: Ms. , lll"JliJ6SfX:X,JfripBIAr,"r. , W.P. NO: 15426 0F 2018 Between: Y Lin .Suresh, .S/o.poshetty, age 33 gampally Village, lvlamada'tvlandal,'Nirmat 6i."tri"i' ""'"'', years, Occ. unempl,;yee, . R/o. Kotha ...PETITIONER AND 1

2. J,

4. The State of Telanoana. Rep.by its principal Secretary, l,rigation and CAD Department, Secret5riat, Hvdbra'bad - 'r - Y "vi v'|s'! , , rne Urstrict Collector / Chairman, District Selection Committee For F;ehabilitation displaced persons,.Nirmal District. Telanqanzr sjtate. The Administrator-cum-ihiet Engineer' Sri Ram Sagar- Prc'jeci 1Snse1. ru1..1 Road, Hyderabad. The Superintendino Fnoinesl. Godavari Valley circle Nt, .1, 5r,r", arou, Project, pochampa?u, 6aritonoa uranoai, L istrict, Tetansa_na State -e6r;bAb, -Ay .,RESPoNDENTS Petitron under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia p_aying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more 6rarticularly one in the nature of Writ of ,\,4andamus declaring the Memo E227lE2tl,lzBt,g3Z dated t i 7

5.12.2O17 of the respondent No.4 herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the settled principles of law and violative of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct lhe respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by way of including the petitioners name in the seniority list in terms of G.O.Ms.No.9g dated 'l 5-4-1986 under displaced persons quota lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 suspend the Memo E227lE2lNZBl2837 dated 5.12.2011 of the respondent No.4 herein to the extent of the petitioner forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by including the petitioner name in the seniority list, Nizamabad pending disposal of main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. N. NAGAVANI PRASOONA FOR SRI PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. B. ANNAPOORNA, AGP FOR SERVICES I W.P. NO: 15457 OF 2018 Between: Qgslkondq Machendra Nath, S/o.Maruthi, age 42 years, Occ. unemployee, R/o.H.No.2-14, Nadukuda Post and Village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 2

4. The State of_Telangana. Rep.by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Chairman District Selection Committee For Rehabilitation, displaced persons, Nizamabad District, Telangana State. The Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP), lV.J. Road, Hyderabad. The Superintending Engineer, Godavari Valley Circle No. 1 , Sriram Sagar Protect, Pochampa$ Balakonda Mandal, Ni2amabad District, Telangaia - Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in ...RESPONDENTS 3 the nature of Writ of lVlandamus declaring the Memo No.E227lE_2lNZB/2830 dated 5.12.2017 of the respondent No.4 herein as arbitrary, illegal. unjust, contrary to the settled principles of law and violative of articles j4 and 2j of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondenls to consider [re candidature of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced person:; quota by way of including the petitioners name in the seniority list in terms of G.O.lvls.No.9g dated 15-4-1986 under displaced persons quota lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circr nrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to suspend the h,4emo No.E227lE2lNZBl2830 dated 5.12.2O1T c,f the respondent No.4 herein to the extent of the petitioner forthwith consid:r the case of the petitioner for any suitable post under displaced persons quota by including the petitioner name in th(,'seniority list, Nizamabad pending dis,posal of main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. N. NAGAVANI PRASOONA FOR SRI P. PRAVIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. B. ANNAPOORNA, AGp FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: COMMON OROER o (r 1 C Wp_15208, 15218, 15267, 15283, 15357, 15426, 15457_2018 NBK,I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION Nos.15208. 15218. 15267 t5283. 15357. I 5426. and 15457 of20l8 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners agricultural and residential lands were acquired by the Govemment for the purpose of Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) in l97l . It is their case that they are entitled to employment under the Displaced Persons Quota vide G.O.Ms.No.9S dated 15.04.1986, however, their applications have been rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground ofdelay' l.l As per the averments in the writ petitions, the specific details of the properties said to have been acquired by the Government under SRSP Project are as follows: l.l.l In W.PNo. 15208 of 2018, the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.9-16 guntas in Survey No.ll3, and also and house bearing No.4-74lB, Rathnapur Village of Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District.

1.1.2 In W.PNo.15218 of 2018, the agricultural land and house bearing Nos.3-96 and 3-98 situated at Boppara Village.

1.1.3 In W.P.No. 15267 of 2018, the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2-23 guntas, Ac.l-27 guntas, Ac.2-04 guntas, and Ac.2- 30Auntas in Survey Nos.122, 164, 167, and 213, and also the houses U.il"g No.5-1, 5-2, 5-3,5-7, to an extent of 123.38 sq.mtrs and 226.20 sq.mtrs situated at Raj pura village.

1.1.4 Ifi W.P.No. 15283 of 20i8, the agricultural land to an extent ol 108.38 sq.mtrs and house bearing No.5-37. n 2 w!,15208, r5218, 15267, 15283, 1s357, 15426, 15457_2018 N8K, ]

1.1.5 In W.P.No.l5357 of 2018, the agricultural land to an \ extent of Ac.2-06 guntas and Ac.2-08 guntas in Surr''ey Nos. 1360 and 1345, and hor.rse bearing No. l-82/4.

1.1.6 In W.P.No. 15426 of 2018, the agric-rltural land to an extent of Ac.0-19 guntas in Sy.No. 125, and 1.c.0-01 guntas in Sy.No.l48, andAc.0-08 guntas in Sy.No.354.

1.1.7 ln W.P.No.l5457 of 2018, the agricultural land and house bearing No.9-50/1, 9-50i2 situated at Nu hypalli village of Nandipet rnandal, Nizamabad District.

2. The subject matter, and also the grievance, bcing similar, the writ petitions are taken up lbr disposal by this Commor.r Orccr. For the sake of discussion, the avetments in W.P.No. 15208 of 2018 are raken as reference.

3. The case of rhe petitioner, as per the writ aft-rdai rr in W.P.No.l5208 of 2018, is that he (and his family) belongs to the BC-U, communiry, and they lost livelihood when the agricultural land and resrdential property house bearing No.4-14/B and land measuring Ac.9- 16 grs in Survey No. I 13 at Rathnapur Village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad Distr ict-were acquired by the Government in 197 I f,or the construction ofthe Sr [{am Sagar Project (SRSP). The family received only meager compensatic,n lrom the Special Deputy Collector, and no alternative employment was p,ovided. Relying on G.O.Ms.No.98, dated I5.04. 1986, issued by the tn.igation (PW) Department, the petitioner contends that the Govemment had committed to offering 50%o ofvacancies in certain junior-level posts ro displaced persons or their dependents, provided that there is no eaming nt,rrnber in the family. t 3 wp-r5Zo8, 152lE, 15257, 1S283, 75357 , t5426, 15457 _2O1a NB(, J

3.t The petitioner submitted an application to the 2nd respondent on 07 .09.2016 referencing the family's loss of rand and property (including house numbers 9-50ll and 9-5012) and asserting that no member of his family has a govemment job. However, his application was rejected vide Memo dated 5.12.2017, citing the time limir under G.O.Ms.No.9g; and Memo dated 24.08.1987 contending that no new applications from displaced persons would be entertained beyond the prescribed time limit. The petitioner filed o.A.No.2297 of 1996 before the Andhra Administrative Tribunal, which, by order dated 26.04.1996, directed the respondent authorities to consider his candidature, however, his application was again rejected on I5.05.2006. He subsequentty submitted another application on 8.9.2017, which was rejecred by referring ro Memo dated 14.05.2010.

3.2 Petitioner contends that in O.A.No.7917 of 2003, the Tribunal set aside an earlier rejection dated 28.03.2000, aflinning that candidates displaced prior to the issuance of c.o.Ms.No.9g were not bound by the time limit of one-year, and accordingly directed the authorities to consider such candidates, including the petitioneq without referring to the date of application. The Govemrnent challenged similar decisions arising from O.A.No. 10637 of 2009 by filing W.p.No.2436 of 2011. This Court, by judgment dated 30.06.2017 dismissed the writ petition, by upholding the Tribunal's findings that the Governmenr's policy allowed such relaxation and there was no injustice in directing consideration ofthe applicant,s claim. 3.3 The matter escalated further when the State approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.p. (Civil) No. 1430g of 2011, and the SLP was dismissed the Supreme court by stating that it was not inclined to interfere under Article 136 of the constitution. petitioner brings to the Court's atteyirin a letter d,ated 30.07.2014 issued by Respondent No.2, / r 4 Wp 5.108, 15218, 15267, 15283, 15357. r!426, 15457_2018 N8K, J which explicitly recognized the final judicial position that no limitation period would apply 1br awardees displaced prior to G.O.Ms.No.9S dated

15.04.1986; and in spite of this judicial position, his application was again rejected through Memo dated 05.12.2017, while similarll :,ituated persons have recently been appointed under the same policy.

3.4 The petitioner contends that the responder ts; countered his claims by alleging that the petitioner was ineligible under the displaced persons quota due to expiry ol time limit mentioned in crrrlicr government orders. However, the petitioner contends that such a positiolt has been repeatedly overruled by competent judicial bodies, inclurlirg the Tribunal, this Court, and the Supreme Court, thereby rendering the rc spondents' stance baseless and contrarv to established law.

3.5 Petitioner further contends that the rejection of his application on the grounds of an expired deadline is no1 only con:rary to judicial precedents but also to the government's own findings ancl actions in similar cases. The petitioner asse(s that unless directed br this Court, the respondents will continue to unjustly deny him rh( oppoftunity for employment, despite his legal entitlement as a displa:ed person under G.O.Ms.No.98. Petitioner therefore prays for the issurLncc of a Writ of Mandamus declarin.g Memo dated 05. 12.201 7 as itlegal ar rd unconstitutional and for a direction to include his name in the seniority Iist lor appointment under the displaced persons quota. He submits that he has no altemative remedy and has not approached any other forum for the samc relief.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; and lerrrned Government Pleader lor Services-I. Peruscd the record. t I 5 wp rs2o8, r5218, 15267, 152E1, 15357, 15425, 15457 2018 NAK, .,

5. Leamed counsel tor the petitioner essentially contends that the rejection of petitioner's application for employment under the displaced persons quota was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and in violation of his fundamental rights under Articles l4 and 2l of the constitution of India.

5.1 It is contended that the petitioner and his family was displaced in 1971due to the acquisition of their agricultural and residential property, and the Government under G.O.Ms.No.98, dated I5.04. 1986, pledged to allocate 50Yo of certain junior-level posts to disptaced. persons or their dependents, especially when there were no other eaming members in the family, and the petitioner quatifies under these criteria, as no member of his family holds a govemmenr job.

5.2 It is contended that the petitioner's application has been rejected by the respondents through Memo dated 05.12.2017, citing expiry of prescribed time limit under G.O.Ms.No.98 and relared clarificatory memos, notably Memo dated 24.08.1987 and Memo dated 14.05.2010, by stating that no new applications from displaced persons could be accepted decades after the original displacement.

5.3 It is contended that that time limitations do not apply to persons displaced before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98. FIe references several key legal decisions, and in support of this contention, namely, the O.A.No.229711996, wherein the Tribunal had already direcred the respondents in 1996 to consider his case; that in O.A.No.791712003, the Tribunal held that the one-year limitation could nor be applied ro those displaced before 1986; that this view was reaffirmed in O.A.No.l0637l2OOg (upheld by this Court in W.P.No.2436l2011 through a decision dated 30.06.2017); that the Special Leave Petition (SLP No.14308/201l) filed by I L J 6 w! 15208, Is218, 15267,15283, 1535 7. 15426, 15457 2018 N8K,I the Government challenging this ruling was dismissed by th,: Supreme Court on 04.07.201 I , affinning the relaxation of the time limit.

5.4 Furthermore, the petitioner cites a letter daterl 10.07.2014 lrom Respondent No.2, rvhich recognized that no limitation period applied to displaced persons prior to 1986, thus confirming the interT,rr:tation of the law in favour of the petitioner. He also highlights that similar y situared persons have been recently appointed under the same scheme. ivher.eas his case continucs to be unfa.irly rejected.

6. Mrs. B. Annapurna, learned Assistant Govemment trleader, appearing on behalf of Irrigation & CAD Department, based on thc counter-aftidavit filed by the respondent, contends that the petilio.rcr's request for employment under the displaced persons quota-based o,r the acquisition of agricultural land and residential property belonging to his lamily lbr the Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) in 1971-is both time-barre,J and procedurally invalid. The crux of the respondent's position is thlt the petitioner's application dated 8.9.2017, filed 46 years alter the actual displacement, is grossly belated and falls outside the scope of existing lovernment orders and clarificatory memos goveming such employment clairns.

6. I According to the respondent, the petitioner. is seeking employment under G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.4.1986, a piovemmenr order that was specifically designed to offer jobs to persons displaced due to irrigation projects, provided they submitted their applications within one year from the date of actual displacement. This critical condition is explicitly stated in Para 4(iii) of the said G.O., which also tives preference to applicants whose houses and land were acquired. Thc r.rr.der required all I 7 wp..152O4, 152IE, 15267, l52A), 15157, 15426, 15457-2018 NAK,.' applications to be made to the District Collector, who would then forward them to the project authorities.

6.2 Recognizing the disadvantage faced by those displaced prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98, the Government issued Memo dated

24.8.1987, which relaxed the one-year application deadline only for those displaced before 15.4.1986. However, the respondent emphasizes that this relaxation did not imply that applications could be filed indefinitely. To address the growing number of late and decades-old claims, the Govemment later issued Memo dated 22.12.2005, cautioning that applications should not be enterlained if received long after displacement. This memo stated that although a brief window was allowed for those who misscd the original one- year limit, the authorities should not go on receiving such applications after the lapse ofdecades.

6.3 It is contended by the leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader that this position was reinforced through Memo dated 14.5.2010, which clarified the cutoff period and directed that the Applications received after the notified cutoff dates must be rejected outright, and that no new applications should be accepted, as the deadlines under both G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 and Memo dated 24.08.1987 had expired long ago. It is contended that on this basis, the respondent issued a speaking order vide Memo dated 5.12.2017 rejecting the petitioner's application for employment. The Memo stated that since the petitioner's request came after a 46-year delay, it was not entertainable under the prevailing legal and administrative framework.

6.4 such as Adverting to the judiciat precedents cited by the petitioner O.A. No.79l712003 (order dated 16.7.2007) and O.A. l t 8 Wf 15208, 15218, 15267,15283, 15351 , 15426, 15457 _2074 NBK, ] No. 10637/2009 (order dated 30.6.2010) of the TriburLal)-wherein the Tribunal had directed authorities to consider applications "in'espective of limitation", the lean.red Assistant Government Pleader c,trrtends that these orders were rendered without the benefit of later clarifications, specificalty Memo No.l7498, dated 22.12.2005, and Memo No. I 1606, dated 14.5.2010. And these memos, rvhich were either not presented or \rr(ir3 issued after the earlier rulings, significantly altered the interpretation hy speci$,ing strict timelines and baning new applications.

6.5 Leamed Assistant Covemment Pleader citcs the judgment ot' the Tribunal in O.A. No.2080/20I3, which dealt with a s;imilarly delayed application frled after 28 years of displacement. In the said O.A.No.2080/2013. the Tribunal held that the applicant was nor entitled to be considered undcr G.O.Ms.No.98 due to the cutoff established by the later memos. The judgrnent in O.A. No.2080/2013 concluderl that no inference of unlimited application period could be drawn and the relaxation granted by Memo dated 24.8.1987 was not open-ended and the sarne had to be read in conjunction rvith the later clarifications issued vidc Menro No.37498, dated22.12.2005, and Memo No. I1606, dated 14.5.2010.

6.6 Furthermore, the leamed Assistant Govemment pleader contends that thc pctitioner is attempting to misuse earlicr judicial decisions by ignoring these subsequent and binding clarifications. It is also contended that allowing such outdated claims would not only contradict government policy but also undenrinc the purpose of establishing outolf periods for displaced persons' employment claims. Additionally, bi, filing the writ petition after a long lapse and attempting to claim berrefits well after the expiration of alt deadlines, the petitioner demonstrarr:s a lack of due diligence, ilnot a nralafide intent to exploit administratir,: gaps. i \ \ \ w 9 Wp r5208, 15218, 1s257, ts28l, 15351, 15426, 15457_2018 NBK, ]

7. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it is to be noted that admittedly the petitioner's family was displaced as far back as I 971 due to land acquisition for the Sri Ram Sagar Project, resulting in the loss of agricultural land measuring Ac.9- I 6 gts and residential structures. While the Govemment did issue G.O.Ms.No.9S dated 15.04. 1986 to address such displacement, and initially prescribed a one-year timit for submining applications, this restricted time limit was later relaxed through Memo dated 24.08.1987, which allowed persons displaced prior to the G.O. to apply without being bound by the original one-year deadline.

7.1 The petitioner's application, though filed on 08.09.2017, relies not only on this 1987 relaxation but also on the precedents, namely O.A.No.79l712003 and O.A.No.10637/2009, wherein the Tribunal categorically held that the time limitation in G.O.Ms.No.98 could not be apptied to persons displaced prior to its issuance. These decisions were upheld by this Court in W.P.No.2436120ll. Furtheq the Hon'ble Supreme Courl, in S.L.P. (Civil) No.14308/2011, chose not to interlere, thereby affirming the legal position that no limitation would apply to such displaced persons. Furtheq the Memo No.37498 dated 22.12.2005 and Memo L i I No.l1606 dated 14.05.2010 were either not brought to the Court's aftention or were not found to operate retrospectively to nultiff earlier decisions.

7.2 Further, the petitioner has rightly pointed out the inconsistent application of the policy, noting that similarly situated persons have been considered and appointed under the same displaced persons quota in recent years. Such selective enforcement undermines the principle of equality \ I before the law under Article l4 and thereby such actions are discriminatory and arbitrary. The petitioner's land was acquired for public purpose; however, he has not beefiprovided @u, employment as assured while 'r \ I I 'l L x rcpeated representations, b(-'e:innillg with acquisition. His O.A.No.22971 199(r, shotv consistent pursuit of his clainr' 'hereby the claim cannot be dismissed sunrmarily on the ground of delay or laches' T.3 ln that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner's case deserves consideration under the displaced persons category contcrnplated under G.O'Ms'No'98 ard the subsequent relaxation issued in 1987, and the rejection of his applic:ation vide Memo dated 05.12.2017 is therefore liable to be set aside, in vi:rv of the fact and circumstances of the present case.

8. Accordingly, the impugned Memo dated 05'12'2011' is set aside' and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to thr: respondents to reconsider the pctitioner's application afresh, without re [erence to the one- year limitation, subjccr to verificarion of other eligibilitv criteria under the displaced persons quota, w'ithin a period of four montlLs from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition Nos. 15218, l5:l('7,15283, 15357, 15426, and t5457 ol20 l8 also stand disposed of in 1rt: same terms' No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shatl stand closed' SD/. SRI M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSiISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (-* SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Derpartment, Secretariat' T.S., Hyderabad 2 Th; 6istrict Cotlector / Chairman District Selection Committee For - nefraOitiiation, displaced persons, Nizamabad DisIict, Tr'.langa1q^Slell. .. , 3. The Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, Sri Ram Sagar Prolect (SRSP)' M J Road, Hyderabad. -sufienniending Engineer, Godavari Valley Circle N-o 1 Sriram Sqgar q ihe erole&,' Pochampa-du, 6alakonda Mandal, Nizamabal District, Telan$hna State. ing Engineer, Godavari Valley Circle No 1, Sriram Sagar Project,' Pochampa-du, 6alakonda trilandal, ADILABAD Dtstrict, Telangana State -superintend S. ine

6. One CC 10 [,4/s. N. NAGAVANI PRASOONA, Advocale [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI PADALA PRAVIN KUMAR, Advocat€ tqPUCl - ii. fwo CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court for tl-e State of Telangana at 9. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad [OUT] . .. .. BM -r 4 -.-+r !+ -+r.;+!n+r ' * :n.?:qH?*ssBr?!Er-. '1,* f*r- --->-+*-.*,2 \ - -- '<r<-J.- +-. l0 HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 --::',' ,/'; ,, ... I 15 'rl-!i ?t25 / ':.r' COMMON ORDER WP. N os. 1 5208,1 521 8,1 5267,1 5283,1 53 57,1 542 6 AN D 15457 of 2018 DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS )A l\ \