Disposed

Gunnam Gopala Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and 4 others

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Aug 2023WP/2666/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking mandamus directing respondents to clear obstructions in an irrigation channel or permit the petitioner to do so. The High Court disposed of the petition directing the respondent authorities to remove obstructions within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to remove obstructions in the irrigation channel within two months.

Gunnam Gopala Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADdX

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 2666 OF 2019

¶9

Between:

¶10

R/o^^D No%° Years. Occ Business. ^stGodava^D^trS ’ Ramachandrapuram Municipality.

...PETITIONER

AND

District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada.

¶15

Department, Ramachandrapuram,

¶16

The Station House Officer, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District

¶17

The Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not clearing the M irrigation channel at opposite to the premises Door No.3-7-60, Kotturu, Revenue Ward No.l, in Sy. No. 169 of Kotturu Ramachandrapuram Municipality. East Godavari District inspite of the request of the petitioner or not permitting the petitioner to clear the same on their own as iHegal. arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents to remove the said obstruction for free flow of Irrigation water passing through the Sy.Nos.169,180.181.182.183 of Kotturu Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶21

• under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to remove the obstructions caused in the irrigation channel

¶22

M premises Door No.3-7-60. Kotturu, Revenue Ward No 1 in Sv NO. 169 of Kotturu, Ramachandrapuram Municipality. East Godavari District for tree flow of Irrigation water passing through the Sy.Nos.169,180,181 182 183 of Kotturu, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District free.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. TVS PRABHAKARA RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 3 : GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP FOR HOME

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 5 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶29

WRIT PETITON NO.2666 OF 2019

¶30

ORDER;

¶31

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶32

Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶33

“to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not clearing the obstructions caused in the irrigation channel at opposite to the premises Door No.3-760, Kotturu Revenue Ward No.l, in Sy.No. 169 of Kotturu, Ramachandrapuram Municipality, East Godavari District inspite of the request of the petitioner or not permitting the petitioner to clear the same on their own as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents to remove the said obstruction forfree flew of Irrigation water passing through the Sy.Nos. 169, 180, IBl, 182, 183 of Kotturu, Ramachadrapuram, East Godavari District and to pass such other order or orders..."

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation for the respondents.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the even though the petitioner submitted a representation requesting the respondent authorities to remove the obstructions occurred in the irrigation channel situated opposite to the premises Door No.3-7-

¶36

60, Kotturu Revenue Ward No.l, , in Sy.No.l69 of Kotturu, Ramachandrapuram Municipality, ] East Godavari District, the respondents have not considered the same, He further submits that he has also requested the authorities concerned to allow the petitioner to get it cleared in order to have free flow of water through the subject irrigation channel. But, for one reason or the other, the respondents have neither cleared the obstructions nor allowed the petitioner to clear the said obstructions. Hence, the writ petition.

¶37

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader, submits that on yearly basis, the irrigation channels will be repaired and the obstructions, if any, will be removed before the commencement of kharif season so as to have free flow of water through the irrigation channels. It is further submitted that certainly, the respondents might have been removed the obstructions in respect of the subject irrigation channel. If not so, let there be a direction to the respondent authorities to take steps to remove the obstructions in respect of the subject irrigation channel.

¶38

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents, without going into the merits of the case, this Court

¶39

is of the eonsidered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the respondents,, more particularly, the 3^ respondent herein to take steps to remove the obstructions in respect of the subject irrigation channel, if not yet removed, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel, misceUaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶41

%<br>

¶42

SdA K. KASI RAO ACHARI
assistant registrar
//true copy//
To,
1.
2.
4. .po..,
I
9. T™ Cc! to GP FOR RE^NU^ Hfah“c tOUT]
IVISR°’ High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT]

/ /

HIGH COURT

•i

DATED:10/08/2023

ORDER

(i "1

WP.No.2666 of 2019

¶51

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Gunnam Gopala Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunnam Gopala Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and 4 others

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

Ponnaluru Siva Sankar Reddy Spsr Nellore Dist and Another Vs Prl Secy I and Cad Hyd and 4 Others

Garadam Palli Narayanappa Vs Gopal Krishna Dwivedi, I.A.S.

Katuri R Ama Krishna Vs the State of Ap

M/S. the Urakonda Handloom Weavers Co-Operative Production and Sales Society Limited Vs Gopala Krishna Dwivedi,I.a.S

Smt and Sri Ambati Sesha Reddy and Jaya Lakshmamma Vs The State of A.P.

Jonnalagadda Seetharamaiah Vs Sri Budithi Rajsekhar,Ias