IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 20764 of 2008 Between: Mithra Abhivrudhi Seva Sangam Mustipally, Rep. by its President P. Raghavendra Reddy, S/o. Hanmanthu Reddy, Aged about 46 Years, R/o. Mustipally Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Irrigation & CAD (Project Wing-LA IV $ & R) Department. 2 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 3 Project Administrator and Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 4 The Superintending Engineer, Priyadarsini Jurala Project, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the scheme as per the G.O.Ms.No. 68 Irrigation & CAD (PW.L.A.IV R & R) Department dt. 8-4-2005 to the members of the petitioner socieyt as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to extend the financial assistance and toher basic amenities to resettlement and rehabiliation centers as per the G.O.Ms.No. 68 Irrigation & CAD (PW.L.A.IV R & R) Department dt. 8-4-2005 and as fixed by the Government from time to time; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.20764 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme as per G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 8.4.2005 to the members of petitioner society as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to extend financial assistance and other basic amenities to resettlement and rehabiliation centers as per the above G.O. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 8.4.2005 has no application to the present case. The Priya Darsini Jurala Project had commenced in the year 1981 and the said G.O. was issued on 8.4.2005, which is only prospective in nature, therefore the benefits under the said G.O. are not extendable to the projects commenced prior to the issuance of said G.O. Whereas the learned counsel for petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that Government issued G.O.Ms.No.211 dated 29.10.2008 showing that the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 8.4.2005 were extended to the similarly placed villagers of Chinakakkada village, Vipanagandla mandal, Mahabubnagar district affected by Jurala Project Prima facie, this seems to be for the purpose of notifying the said village for extension of benefits in G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 8.5.2005. Under those circumstances, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of petitioner for notifying it under paragraph 5.1 of Chapter V of G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 8.4.2005 and pass appropriate orders, as per law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 27.11.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.20764 of 2008 27.11.2008