Allowed

Pathuri Subramanyeswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Aug 2023WP/4073/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the conversion of specific canal lands into house plots under a government housing scheme. Relying on ratio from a prior judgment, the court restrained respondents from converting the lands and directed them to maintain the property as canal lands.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed. Respondents are restrained from converting subject lands into house sites and directed to keep the lands intact as canal lands.

Pathuri Subramanyeswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 4073 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pathuri Subramanyeswara Rao, S/o. Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 63 years, Occ. Farmer/Cultivation, R/o.11-143, Sambasiva Nilayam, Poranki, Krishna Dist, Andhra Pradesh - 521137

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Road and Buildings Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati.

¶12

The District Collector, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

The Executive Engineer (R&B), Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh

¶14

The Deputy Executive Engineer (R&B), Jaggaiahpeta Sub-Division, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh

¶15

The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Irrigation Dept. Vijayawada

¶16

The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Special Division, Irrigation Dept, 7. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Special Sub-Division, Irrigation Dept. Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District

¶17

The Tahsildar, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring respondents action in assigning house sites in the lands situated in Sy.No. 605, 606, 607 and 618 of Nandigama (U), Nandiagama Mandal, Krishna Dist. which are classified as P.W.D Kaluva (Public Works Department Canal) as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1 )(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India beside being violative Sec. 18 of the Easement Act, 1882 and Board Standing Orders and seeking

¶20

consequential direction against the respondents to reinstate and maintain the lands situated in Sy.No. 605, 606, 607 and 618 of Nandigama (U) classified as Kaluva (Canal) for the irrigation and flood mitigation purposes.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition 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 direct the respondents not to make any further leveling activities to the alter the nature of lands situated under Sy.No. 605, 606, 607 and 618 of Nandigama (U), Nandiagama Mandal, Krishna Dist. which are classified as P.W.D Kaluva (Public Works Departrnent Canal) pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1, 3, 4: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents Nos.2 & 8: GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents Nos. 5, 6 & 7: GP FOR IRRIGATION

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.4073 OF 2021

¶29

ORDER:-

¶30

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶31

I •

¶32

"... to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring respondents action in assigning house sites in the lands situated in Sy.No. 605, 606, 607 and 618 of Nandigama (U), Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District which are classified as P.W.D Kaluva (Public Wgrks Department Canal) as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1) (g) & 21 of the Constitution of India beside being violative Section 18 of the Easement Act, 1882 and Board Standing Orders and seeking consequential direction against the respondents to reinstate and maintain the lands situated in Sy.No.605, 606, 607 and 618 of Nandigama (U) classified as Kaluva (Canal) for the irrigation and flood mitigation purposes and pass such other order or orders... ”

¶33

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands in Survey Nos.605, 606, 607 and 618 of Nandigama (U), Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District are vested with the irrigation department. While so. Respondent Nos.l and 2 are taking steps for allotment of the said lands by converting the Canal Land into the house plots under Navaratnalu scheme. The

¶35

NV.J M'.P.No.4073 of2021

¶36

¶37

subject land neither can be converted nor can be distributed by way of house sites. Since such conversions is contrary to law.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per adangals / Revenue records, the said lands were classified as Government lands and earmarked as canal lands. Hence, the lands earmarked as canal lands or lands of water bodies or Natural streams or Rivers or Tanks, neither can be assigned nor can be converted for any other purposes. Therefore, the subject lands were classified as PWD kaluva and not enable for distribution as house site pattas in favour of house less poor persons as envisaged under the housing scheme (Navaratnalu) by Respondent No.l.

¶39

5. Therefore, the proposed action of the respondents cannot be allowed and the subject lands should be protected as it is as canal lands for which the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Duggirala Ayyanna and others Vs. The State of Andhra

¶40

Pradesh and others^.

¶41

6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development filed counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that the land in the Sy.Nos.605, 605, 607, 618 of Nandigama Nagar Panchayat in Nandigama Mandal is classified as P.W.D Kaluva as per the adangals of the Revenue records concerned. Even though the said lands are classified as P.W.D Kaluva, the subject Canal is completely defunct and most of the lands are converted into real estate ventures. It is further stated

¶42

Manu/AP/0316/2020 ! W.P.No. 16656 of 2020 dated 21.10.2020

¶43

Ny,j iy.P.No.4073 of2021

¶44

¶45

¶46

that there is no water regulation through the canal lands since long back and similarly ho maintenance works were taken up. The above said canal is not a flood mitigation channel as there is no source of outfall nearer to the qanal.

¶47

It i3 further stated that the site was inspected and. a letter was addressed to the Tahsildar, Nandigama to depute the Mandal Surveyor to fix the boundaries of. the Sy.Nos.605, 606, 607, 618 in Nandigama, Nandigama Mandal to verify and inspect the lands of entire canal is there any assignment by way of house sites so as to conserve the department property, if found there are encroachments or any illegal activities / occupation within the boundaries of the canal. In view of law laid by this Court, the lands should be protected as the lands of the canal lands. 3. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development and also in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in Duggirala Ayyanna and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are restrained from any action for conversion of the subject lands into the house sites. Further, the respondents are directed to keep the said lands intact as canal lands as envisaged under the law as well as the ratio laid down by this Court in Duggirala Ayyanna and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

AAK7 IV.P.No.407.3 of2021

¶49

¶50