Kunamneni Nageswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Aug 2023WP/771/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition filed by an agriculturist challenging the prohibition on drawing water from a state endowment tank. Relying on the petitioner's submission that his agricultural lease had expired, the court closed the writ petition without examining the merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition was closed without any order as to costs pending expiry of agricultural lease.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

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

¶4

H 3

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 771 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kunamneni Nageswara Rao. S/o. Venkata Rao. Hindu, aged 59 years. Occ Agriculture, R/o. Bodawada Mandagunta Village, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1. ^e State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary. Revenue (Endowments) Department, Velgapudi. Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶13

2. Krish^aTT'rDepartment, Gollapudi, Vijayawada,

¶14

The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department Ongole.

¶15

Vajj^lakunta Tank, Bodawada Mandagunta Village, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District, Rep. by its Executive Officer

¶16

Krishna Rohini Kumar. S/o. Danavendra Rao,, Aged 40 Years

¶17

Par^X^dTp%\«S"'''

¶18

(R5 is impleaded as per C.0.dt.14/03/2022in IA.No.2/2022.)

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayinq that in the Ac.24.82 cents of Parchuru, Prakasam District as bad, of rnLSm r ? a'° ® princ'ptes of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 with th? oonsequently direct the respondents not to interfere ri^WecHa^! agricultural operdtions including drawing of water from the ouujUGi lanK.

¶21

¶22

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶23

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 pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 17-01-2022 passed in IA.No.1 of 2022 in WP.No.771 of 2022, and to dismiss the above Writ Petition in the interest of Justice

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶25

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 3 and 4 to draw the water from the 4th respondent tank situated in R.S. No.320 measuring Ac.2 4.82 cents of Parchuru, Prakasam District and pass.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. D V SASIDHAR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents 4: SRI G.RAMANA RAO, ADVOCATE

¶29

■Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SUDHAKARAO AMBATI, ADVOCATE

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶33

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.771 OF 2022

¶34

Between:

¶35

Kunamneni Nageswara Rao, S/o. Venkata Rao, Hindu, aged 59 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bodawada Mandagunta Village, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District

¶36

... Petitioner

¶37

And

¶38

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and four others.

¶39

¶40

... Respondents

¶41

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D.V.Sasidhar Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Govt. Pleader for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.4 : Learned Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent No. 5 : Sri G.Ramana Rao

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The above writ petition is filed in not allowing the petitioner to draw water from respondent No.4 tank in R.S.No.320 of an extent of Ac.24.82 cents of Bodawada Mandagunta Village, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal and arbitrary.

¶44

¶45

¶46

SRS. J W.P.No.771 of 2022

¶47

2. Writ petition was filed in January, 2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that agricultural’ lease of the petitioner was completed and hence, nothing survives for the adjudication in this writ petition. 3. Recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs.

¶48

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶49

stand dismissed.

¶50

SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTER //TRUE COPY// '^(^^SEC^ON^OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

One CC to SRI. D V SASIDHAR Advocate [OPUC]
2. Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh.
[OUT]
3. One CC to SRI G.RAMANA RAO, ADVOCATE [OPUC]
4. One CC to SRI AMBATI SUDHAKARAO, ADVOCATE [OPUC]

¶53

Two CD Copies

GSR

/ • '

GSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/08/2023

,fe 3 C SEP 2023 £__“"■<’"1 aertion ___ **-S,_**

¶61

ORDER

¶62

WP.No.771 of 2022

¶63

.H/’

¶64

CLOSED OF WP

Kunamneni Nageswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunamneni Nageswara Rao 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

Sri Dendeti Mutyala Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Ap

Talari Chinna Srinivasulu Vs the State of Ap

Syed Fayaaz Ahmed Vs the State of a P

Syed Fayaaz Ahmed Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.S.N.v.Kameswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh