IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 105 of 2008 Between: Kakarla Ram Mohan Rao S/o.Mallesam Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Power Generation Corporation, Vidyuthsoudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, A.P.Genco, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Palvancha, Khammam District. 3 The Superintending Engineer, KTPS, A.P. Genco, Yelandu, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the case of the petitioner for suitable appointments under land loosers quota in the respondent organization pursuant to displacement from their lands in Sy.No 578 admeasuring Ac.5-00of sulimalla village, Yellandu Mandal, Khammam District as illegal, arbitary ad consequently direct the respondent to consider the case of of the petitioner for suitable appointment in the respondent organization forthwith in the guise of G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation dated 15-4-1986 and G.O,Ms.NO.266 , Irrigation of G.Mo,No, 98 Irrigation dated 15-4-1986and G.O.Ms.No.266 , Irrigation & CAD dated 19-9-1994 and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for suitable appointment under the land losers’ quota, as illegal and arbitrary. The writ petition was admitted on 21.01.2008 and an interim order was passed in W.P.M.P.No.113 of 2008, directing the respondents to provide suitable employment to the petitioner under land losers’ quota. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit denying the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that even according to the petitioner, he is not the owner of the land and that he is “nominee” of the original land-holder. The further objection is that if at all any authority, it is the A.P.TRANSCO/A.P.N.P.D.C.L. against whom the petitioner has to work out his remedies. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. There is some uncertainty as to the identity of the petitioner in the context of his being land loser. The petitioner has to disclose his title to the land, which is said to have been acquired, as well as the identification given to him by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned in accordance with the scheme. Such particulars are lacking. Further, the liability even in case of a genuine land loser, would be on the A.P.TRANSCO or the Distribution Company concerned. The land was not acquired for the benefit of any unit of the A.P.GENCO. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, in the present state of affairs. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19.08.2008 kdl