Dismissed

Jakkapogula Pullaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Feb 2024WP/1135/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a Janmabhoomi Mavoori Committee member was dismissed as infructuous after Government Pleaders represented that the principal dues had already been paid, with liberty granted to pursue fresh proceedings for interest or differential amounts.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to claim differential/interest amounts via separate legal proceedings; Writ Petition dismissed.

Jakkapogula Pullaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

'r 'i

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGAD WRIT PETITION NO: 1135 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Jakkapogula Pullaiah, S/o. Pedda Huseni. Aged 50 Years, Occ. Janmabhoomi Mavoori Committee member, R/q. Venkatapuram Village, Banaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Finance and Planning, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Gpvornment, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amarevathi, Guntur District.

¶14

The Chief Engineer. Minor Irrigation Department. Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶15

The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool,

¶16

The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Water Resources Department, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶17

The Executive Engineer, M.I.Works Division Water Resources Department. Nandyal, Kurnool. 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

¶20

¶21

A / I' \

¶22

be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in nbn-payment of amounts due for the last three years even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner after the successful completion of the execution of different irrigation works in Banaganapaiii and Sanjamala Mandal in Kurnool District under Neeru-Chettu programme duly approved by the respondents as illegal, arbitrary unjust, unreasonable and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to consider the payment of amounts due to the petitioner in respect of execution of said work forthwith: lA NO: 1 OF 2099 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i m support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the amounts payable to the petitioner for different irrigation works in Banaganapaiii and Sanjamala Mandal in Kurnool District executed by him under "Neeru-Chettu" programme immediately.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 ; GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING Counsel for the Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 : GP FOR IRRIGATION The Court made the following:

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO. 1135 of 2022

¶26

ORDER;

¶27

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

¶28

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, on oral instructions submitted that respondent authorities paid the total due amount claimed by the petitipner.

¶29

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents paid the principal amount, but not paid the interest as claimed by the petitioner.

¶31

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader that the principal amount was already paid as claimed by the petitioner and also the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the further claim of interest for delayed payment can be agitated by way of initiation of separate/fresh legal proceedings is also valid and sustainable.

¶32

In view of the facts and circurnstances and for the reasons stated above, the present Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, granting

¶33

liberty to the petitioner to claim differential amount/withheld amount or interest amount, if any, by way of initiation of fresh/separate legal proceedings in accordance with law. No costs.

¶34

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

¶35

stand closed.

¶36

SD/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

One CC to SRI. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCS to GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING .High Court Of Andhra ^ Pradesh. [OUT]

¶41

Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION, High Court Of Andhra^Pradesh, z' [OUT]

¶42

Two CD Copies

KPR

V-. .1,

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.1135 of 2022

DISMISSING THE W.P

AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COST

Jakkapogula Pullaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jakkapogula Pullaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mannuru Bhaskar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Displaced Ryots' Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pulagara Venugopala Rao Vs Srinivasulu Bayineni

Kaipa Eswar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Parri Maheswari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nelapati Ramesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh