IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6073 of 2008 Between: Bhukya Bheemudu, S/o. B. Ramulu, R/o. Laxmidevpally, Somulagudem (V), Paloncha, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited, Vidyutsoudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad -82, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2 The Chief Engineer (O&M), Kothagudem Thermal Power Station - V Stage, A.P. Genco, Limited, Paloncha, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not appointment the petitioner under land oustee quota as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the Petitioner as Junior Plant Attendant or against any other suitable post under Land Oustee Quota by considering the Petitioner's representation dt. 11-02-2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6073 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is the resident of Laxmidevpally, hamlet of Somulagudem Village, Khammam District. His family holds an extent of 3.29 guntas of land in Sy.No.68, nearby Kinnerasani Reservoir, constructed to provide water to Kathagudem Thermal Power Station. It is stated that on account of sudden release of water from the reservoir, by the authorities of the power station, the lands of the petitioner are getting inundated, and becoming unfit for cultivation, year after year. The respondents evolved a scheme for providing employment to the persons, whose lands are acquired for constructing the reservoir. A notification was issued, providing for grant of land looser certificate, by the authorities of the revenue department. The mother of the petitioner submitted an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Paloncha, for issuance of land looser certificate. The latter, in turn, addressed a letter dated 15-02-2007 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, stating that the family of the petitioner is loosing livelihood on account of flooding, and that they may be issued the land looser certificate. Almost similar letter emanated from the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Bhadrachalam. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, in turn, addressed letter dated 23-03-2007 to the 2nd respondent with a request to provide employment to the petitioner as a land looser. The petitioner contends that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the Government in Irrigation Department issued G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15-04-1986, evolving a scheme for providing employment to eligible candidates in the family, whose lands are acquired for various causes. The petitioner would certainly have been extended the benefit under the scheme, had their land been acquired for the reservoir, by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Such is not the case. The benefit is claimed on the ground that the land is being inundated, on account of release of water from the reservoir. On that basis, the petitioner cannot be treated as a land looser. In case the land is inundated, resulting in loss of crop, or any other damage, he has to approach a Civil Court, claiming necessary compensation. Some times, the authorities of the revenue department, or respondents, can, themselves, assess the damage and compensate the owners for such a loss, if it is attributed to the acts or omissions on the part of the officials of the respondents. No relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in a Civil Court, or with the officials of the concerned departments. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03-04-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}