ORDER : 1. The petitioners, who are the displaced persons under Polavaram Irrigation Project, have sought a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in not extending financial assistance for construction of houses by them under resettlement and rehabilitation package fixed by the State Government under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013 (for short the Act 30 of 2013). 2. The petitioners 1, 2 and 8 are teachers. The petitioners 3 and 9 are employed in Police Department. The petitioner No. 5 is a Lab Assistant and the petitioner No. 4 is a Physical Director. The petitioners 6 and 7 are Home Makers. They claim that they are all residents of Mamidigondi Village, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. Mamidigondi Village was affected by submergence under Indira Saagar Project, which is Polavaram Irrigation Project. The petitioners claim that they had permanent houses in this village and where they were residing, employed in different professions and positions. They were all evacuated from Mamidigondi village during the year 2014-15 on account of the land acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 2008. 4. By way of compensation, they were granted house site pattas by the Tahsildar, Polavaram Mandal in R.K. No. 270/2004, dated 24.09.2007 for the purpose of construction of houses, in resettlement zone, namely Gunjavaram village, Polavaram Mandal. This place is about 15 k.m. away from Mamidigondi Village. 5. Now the complaint of the petitioners is that they were not paid the cost of construction of houses in resettlement village though they were all project displaced members of different families under this project as per the package fixed by the State Government for resettlement and rehabilitation, under the Act 30 of 2013. The petitioners also state that a socio-economic survey was conducted for providing financial benefits under the above Act for affected families and the data collected in the year 2007 mentioned them, being Below Poverty Line (BPL) category. The petitioners also state that they belonged to Koya community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential Order relating to State of Andhra Pradesh and that they have been residing in the 5th schedule area as per the Constitution of India. 6. The petitioners also state that they belonged to Koya community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential Order relating to State of Andhra Pradesh and that they have been residing in the 5th schedule area as per the Constitution of India. 6. The petitioners further state that they have been requesting the respondents since the year 2015, claiming R&R benefits including the financial assistance for construction of houses without any response. 7. The petitioners further referred to G.O.Ms. No. 68, Irrigation and CAD (Project Wing-LA-IV-R&R) Department, dated 08.04.2005 which requires uniformity to be ensured in extending the benefits across the State under Resettlement and Rehabilitation package and as a comprehensive policy in a transparent manner. Referring to this policy, the petitioners claimed that initially the Government fixed financial assistance of Rs. 50,000/- for construction of houses, which was later on gradually increased to Rs. 4,55,000/- which benefit they are entitled to. 8. Their further complaint is that the respondents have not been heeding to their request stating that they are all gainfully employed and being Government employees, which is not correct. Reference is also made by the petitioners of a clarification by the Commissioner, R&R in his Letter CRR-11021/11/2016-SECA-CRR, dated 07.04.2017 to the District Collector, Srikakulam, entitling all those belonging to project displaced families irrespective of whether they belong to Above Poverty Line (APL) or Below Poverty Line (BPL) categories, a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Therefore, the petitioners claim that to get their grievance redressed, they are constrained to approach this Court by means of this writ petition. 9. On behalf of the respondents, through the 7th respondent-Tahsildar, Polavaram, a counter affidavit is filed resisting the claim of the petitioners. 10. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioners were earlier residents of Mamidigondi Village, who owned agricultural lands in and around this village. It is the further contention of the respondents that when this village was submerged under Indira Sagar Project, pursuant to the proceedings of the 5th respondent for acquisition of these lands, the petitioners were allotted separate lands under R&R land to land scheme at Gunjavaram H/o Pragadapalli village of Polavaram Mandal as a substitute and also Ac. 0-05 cents towards house sites in the same village. 0-05 cents towards house sites in the same village. It is further stated that under R&R scheme, value of the structures was also paid for the old houses owned by the petitioners at Mamidigondi village and thus, all the benefits were extended as per G.O.Ms. No. 68 as per their eligibility. It is further stated that the petitioners have moved on to R&R colony. 11. The respondents further stated that the present attempt of the petitioners is to get compensation under the new Act, namely Act 30 of 2013 and that this Act of 2013 is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. The respondents contended that their properties were acquired way back in the years 2006 and 2007 under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and R&R compensation was paid as per the G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 08.04.2005. 12. It is further stated by the respondents that the petitioners belong to the Above Poverty Line (APL) category and in terms of clause 6(3) of G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 08.04.2005 they are not entitled to for extended financial benefit and the said provision is not retrospective, which had come into force only on 10.12.2012. Thus the respondents resisted this writ petition. 13. Heard Sri. J. Satya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition on behalf of the respondents. 14. Now, the point for determination is whether the petitioners are entitled for benefits under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme including for the purpose of construction of houses in the sites allotted to them? POINT: 15. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013 came into force with effect from 01.01.2014. The procedure relating to awarding compensation and other benefits including rehabilitation and resettlement are somewhat different than what was provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 16. It is not in dispute that the properties belonging to the petitioners at Mamidigondi village, either houses or lands, were subject matter of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, there cannot be any claim by the petitioners in terms of Act 30 of 2013 as is pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 17. Therefore, there cannot be any claim by the petitioners in terms of Act 30 of 2013 as is pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 17. The main grievance of the petitioners is want of response from the respondents to make way for financial assistance to construct houses in R&R colony, Gunjavaram village of Polavaram Mandal. 18. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 68, Irrigation and CAD (Project Wing-LA-IV-R&R) Department, dated 08.04.2015, setting out the policy to address the issue on displacement, recognizing need with utmost care, human touch and forethought. Emphasis is laid in this context especially to meet the requirements of the tribal, small and marginal farmers. In order to bring about a uniform policy relating to resettlement and rehabilitation of displaced persons, under the projects, the policy of the Government so brought out in the year 2005 sets out the measures to meet this formidable challenge. 19. There are various chapters in this policy of 2005, setting out the objective, defining certain provisions, appointment of Administrator and Commissioner for resettlement and rehabilitation including their powers and functions, schemes/plans for this purpose, benefits therefor to project affected families, social impact assessment, dispute redressal mechanism and monitoring mechanism and applicability. Thus, chapters 1 to 8 of this policy has set out in detail, the manner for resettlement and rehabilitation of displaced families on account of several infrastructure projects being undertaken in this State. 20. The petitioners are relying on the provisions in Chapter-4 of this policy relating to benefits for project affected families. Admittedly, upon acquisition of their old houses and lands, the petitioners were allotted house sites and were paid ex-gratia in terms of para-6.2 of this chapter-4. Thus, they were all allotted Ac.0-05 cents of house site in Gunjavaram village. Considering their social status as scheduled tribes, it appears that the Government also allotted them land in terms of Para-6.5 of this policy. 21. Now, the contention of the petitioners is that in terms of Para-6.3 of chapter-6 of this policy, they are entitled for one time financial assistance, which was initially Rs. 40,000/- that was later increased to Rs. 50,000/-. This amount is stated to be in addition to the housing grant at Rs. 3,000/- allotted as per G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 08.04.2005 and to come into force with effect from 08.04.2005. 40,000/- that was later increased to Rs. 50,000/-. This amount is stated to be in addition to the housing grant at Rs. 3,000/- allotted as per G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 08.04.2005 and to come into force with effect from 08.04.2005. The petitioners also contend that this sum of Rs. 50,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 4.55 lakhs in view of G.O.Rt. No. 641, Rev. (Land Acquisition) Department, dated 14.09.2016. 22. The petitioners further contended that their representation to the 2nd respondent in this regard has not been attended to. 23. Sri. J. Satya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended basing on the material and pointing out the above factors and requested to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners, a copy of which is filed along with this writ petition. The learned counsel also contended that the 2nd respondent can consider this representation and pass appropriate orders and if necessary the petitioners would challenge the said orders in future by means of another writ petition. Ultimately, in the course of hearing such direction is sought for the learned counsel for the petitioners. 24. The learned Assistant Government Pleader strenuously contended that acquisition of the properties of the petitioners was way back in the years 2006 and 2007 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and none of the benefits under the new Act 30 of 2013 can be claimed by them now, since they are not entitled for such benefits. With reference to R&R policy of the State, the learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that in terms of Para-6.3 each project displaced family belonging to BPL category alone is entitled for such financial benefit and the petitioners who have been gainfully employed as Government servants did not belong to BPL category. Therefore, the learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that question of granting such benefit did not arise and even otherwise G.O.Rt. No. 641 dated 14.09.2016 and G.O.Rt. No. 224 dated 30.06.2021 were issued in terms of the New Act 30 of 2013. 25. The learned Assistant Government Pleader is right in her contention. In terms of Para-6.3 in Chapter-6 of R&R Policy, 2005 of the State Government, it is only the Project Displaced Families (PDF) of BPL category, who have been allotted free house sites under Para-6.2, shall get one time financial assistance either of Rs. 40,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- as was enhanced later by G.O.Ms. In terms of Para-6.3 in Chapter-6 of R&R Policy, 2005 of the State Government, it is only the Project Displaced Families (PDF) of BPL category, who have been allotted free house sites under Para-6.2, shall get one time financial assistance either of Rs. 40,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- as was enhanced later by G.O.Ms. No. 8, dated 10.02.2012. Preamble of G.O.Ms. No. 8 itself referred to Para-6.3 of chapter-6 of this policy. 26. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners are all gainfully employed as Government servants except two, who are home makers, when there is no material to show that they belonged to such category known as Below Poverty Line (BPL), they are not entitled for such benefit. However, the petitioners have filed socio-economic data of 2007 along with this writ petition where some of them are shown in BPL category. However, their present status as Government employees, is clear from their description in the writ petition itself and which fact they are not disputing. In such an event, when they are not entitled for the benefit as such, there is no purpose in forwarding their representation to the 2nd respondent for consideration as requested on their behalf. 27. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a clarification issued by the Commissioner, R&R and Secretary to Government to the District Collector, Srikakulam in this respect. However, with reference to question No. 1 in this clarification, answer given is only based on Para-6.2, without referring to effect and impact of Para-6.3 whereby benefit to be conferred towards house construction cost is only to such category belonging to BPL and not otherwise. This clarification in CRR-11021/11/2016-SEC A-CRR, dated 07.04.2017 is upon misreading chapter-6 of policy of 2005 of the State Government. Therefore, it cannot be an illustrative instance for the petitioners to rely on in this context. 28. Attempt of the learned counsel for the petitioners to impress basing on G.O.Rt. No. 641 dated 14.09.2016 and G.O.Rt. No. 224 dated 30.06.2021 is also misconceived. In the sense, these two G.Os. were issued under the new Land Acquisition Act, namely Act 30 of 2013 and with reference to cost of housing unit in scheduled and tribal areas increasing either to Rs. 4.55 lakhs or Rs. 10 lakhs. G.O.Rt. No. 224 dated 30.06.2021 is applicable only to such displaced families, who are eligible under R&R package of Rs. were issued under the new Land Acquisition Act, namely Act 30 of 2013 and with reference to cost of housing unit in scheduled and tribal areas increasing either to Rs. 4.55 lakhs or Rs. 10 lakhs. G.O.Rt. No. 224 dated 30.06.2021 is applicable only to such displaced families, who are eligible under R&R package of Rs. 10 lakhs for +41.15 M contour under Polavaram Irrigation Project. Therefore, no assistance can be gained by the petitioners under these two G.Os. 29. It is contended for the petitioners that the counter affidavit in this writ petition is filed by the Tahsildar than the 5th respondent and that it is a reflection of nature of response of the respondents to their cause. It would have been more appropriate if 4th or 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit than 7th respondent-Tahsildar. 30. The main relief in the writ petition is to extend the benefits under the Act 30 of 2013, which is not clearly permissible to the case of the petitioners. Even their case is not covered by R&R Package Policy of 2005 as discussed supra. 31. In the above circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, neither the relief as requested by the petitioners can be granted to the petitioners nor their representation be forwarded to the 2nd respondent for consideration. The petitioners cannot make an attempt to lay foundation by means of a direction to consider their representation in this respect nor a direction be given to the respondents in the given facts and circumstances. 32. Therefore, finding no merit in the present writ petition nor extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked, particularly having regard to the questionable bona fides of the petitioners in making such request, this petition has to be dismissed. 33. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 34. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. Interim Orders, if any, stand vacated.