Remanded

Vegesana Satyanarayana Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2022WP/3882/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order permitting a change of agricultural water source, alleging violation of natural justice. The Single Judge refused to decide the merits but remanded the matter to the District Collector for fact-finding and a hearing to both parties.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to District Collector for fact-finding after ensuring hearing to all affected parties within two weeks.

Vegesana Satyanarayana Raju Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.3882 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The respondent Nos. 7 & 8, who own about 3 acres 48 cents and 3 acres and 43 cents respectively in various subdivision numbers of survey Nos.169/1A, 169/2A,2B, 171/4,5, 171/3A of Pata Injaram Village, I. Polavaram Mandal, had made a representation to the respondent No.2 for changing the source of water for their agricultural lands from Channel No.14 to Channel No.15. This request was made on the ground that the lands of these respondents were earlier irrigated with water from Channel No.14, but the same had to be stopped few years back and the respondents had been drawing water from the Channel No.15 and wanted the same to be regularized in view of the fact that the cement pipes through which they were drawing water from Channel No.15 had been removed by ryots in the same area.

¶4

The respondent No.2 after considering this request and taking into account the report of the Executive Engineer of the Godavari Central Division had ordered by an e-file No.391951 dated 20.11.2021 directed the respondents No.3 and 4 to permit the change of source of water from Channel No. 14 to Channel No.15.

¶5

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners who are also owners of extent of land in Survey No.169 have approached this Court with the complaint that the said order of the District Collector permitting the change of source of water

¶6

¶7

from Channel No.14 to Channel No.15 adversely affects their lands as the flow of water through their lands would be changed and this would result in their interests being affected. The complaint of the petitioners is that the entire exercise had been carried out without giving them an opportunity to place their objections.

¶8

Sri E.V.V Ravi Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned proceedings passed by respondent No.2 are clearly violative of principles of natural justice as the affected parties were not heard.

¶9

The respondent No.4 and respondent Nos. 7 & 8 have filed their counter affidavits. In these counter affidavits it is stated that respondent Nos. 7 & 8 would not be able to draw water from Channel No.14 and as such they would be entitled to draw water from Channel No.15. Sri A. K. Kishore Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 7 & 8 would submit that an enquiry was conducted in the village, in view of the request of the respondents for change of the source of water and the petitioners herein had deliberately kept themselves away from the said enquiry. He further submits that the petitioners are only seeking to arm-twist respondent Nos. 7 & 8 and there is no real damage to the interests of the petitioners. In the circumstances, he submits that the complaint of the petitioners that their interests would be affected is untrue. He submits that on the other hand, the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 are unable to carry on agricultural operations in their land due to the stay granted by this Court, after the Writ Petition had been filed and prays that the Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶10

¶11

Heard both sides. In view of the rival submissions involving questions of fact as to whether the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 can source water from Channel No.14 or not and on the question of whether such a course of action would affect the lands of the petitioners, it would be appropriate to relegate this matter to the fact finding authority, who could then take a decision on the matter.

¶12

As the respondent No.2 has already passed orders in this regard, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent No.2 to go into this issue.

¶13

It is stated that the East Godavari District has been divided into Konaseema, East Godavari and Kakinada Districts. It is stated that the land would now fall within the limits of Konaseema District. In view of the above submission, this Court, suo-moto impleads the District Collector and Magistrate, Konaseema District as respondent No.9.

¶14

The respondent No.9 shall consider the objections if any that will be filed by the petitioners within a period of two (02) weeks from now and give a due opportunity of hearing to respondent Nos. 7 & 8. The respondent No.9, after considering the objections raised by the petitioners and respondent Nos. 7 & 8, shall dispose of the said objections within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of the objections.

¶15

The impugned order shall not be disturbed till such time the respondent No.9 takes a decision in the matter. The impugned order shall either stand as it is or shall be amended or cancelled on the basis of the decision of the respondent No.9. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

¶17

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶18

closed.

¶19

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶20

Date : 14.07.2022 MJA

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.3882 of 2022

¶24

Date : 14.07.2022

¶25

MJA

Vegesana Satyanarayana Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vegesana Satyanarayana Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kankanala Ramabrahmam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Veluri Kameswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Sajja Kanaka Durga, Vs the State of Ap

V.Ashok Kumar,Tiruvuru,Krishna Dist.,a.P. Vs the State of a.P.,Mun.Admn.,Amaravati,and 3 Otrs.

Polam Krishna Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Floyd Qc and Engineering Consultancy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh