Disposed

Yaganti Seetha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Nov 2024WP/16688/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landless villagers sought mandamus directing authorities to act on their representations for lease of vacant acquired irrigation-project lands and usufruct rights over trees, alleging discrimination favouring erstwhile land owners. The court directed the concerned authorities to consider the representation and take action per applicable government orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Authorities directed to consider the petitioners' representation and take appropriate action per relevant government orders and regulations within eight weeks.

Yaganti Seetha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 16688 OF 2024

¶8

Between;

¶9

01.	Yaganti Seetha, W/o. Panchala Rao, Age; 60 years. R/o. H.No.6-107,A. Polavaram.
02.	Thamileti Bala Suraiah, W/o. Ramulu, age;45 years, R/o. H.No.3-98, A. Polavaram.
03.	Megali Manga, W/o. Nageshwar Rao, age;40 years, R/o. H.No.3-98, A. Polavaram.
04.	Pattan Masthan, S/o. Kalisha, age;40 years, R/o. H.No.3-98, Tadvayi Village.
05.	Bokka Venkatesh, S/o. Veeraiah, age;62 years, R/o. H.No.1-145, Chinnavari Gudem.
06.	Dometi Vani, W/o. Veeraju, age;54 years, R/o. H.No.12-607, A. Polavaram.
07.	Chalamala Vimala, W/o. Laxminarayana, age;40 years, R/o. 1-1.No.5-93, Tadvayi Village.
08.	Jala Chinna Durgaiah, S/o. Siddaiah, age 55 year, R/o. H.No.2-102, A. Polavaram.
09.	Nelapala Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. Elukalaiah, age;60 years, R/o. H.No.1-40, Chakradevarapalli.
10.	Veera Valli Anjaneyulu, S/o.Ramanjaneyulu,age;54years,

¶10

¶11

R/o. H.No.6-92, A. Polavaram.

¶12

Domati Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. Veera Bhadrudu, age:64 years, R/o. H.No.3-102, A. Polavaram.

¶13

Thonam Samalamma, W/o. Edukondalu, age:52 years. R/o. H.No.5, A. Polavaram.

¶14

Ediapalli Durga Rao, S/o. Narsaiah. age:45 years, R/o. H.No.1-30, A. Polavaram.

¶15

Saila Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkanna, age:42 years, R/o. H.No.8-103, Chakradevarapalli.

¶16

Chanamala Laxmi Naryana, S/o. Pedda Venkanna, age: 65 years, R/o. H.No.5-93, Tadvayi Village.

¶17

Yarramala Kumari, W/o. Venkateshwar Rao, age;52 years, R/o. H,No.3-110, A. Polavaram.

¶18

The above Petitioners 1 to 16 are residents of Respective village of Jangareddygudem Mandal Elluru District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶19

AND

¶20

Petitioners

¶21

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶22

The District Collector, Eluru District, Eluru,

¶23

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem Division, Jangareddygudem, Eluru District

¶24

The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Eluru, Eluru District.

¶25

The Executive Engineer > Irrigation Circle, Eluru, Eluru District

¶26

¶27

The Deputy Executive Engineer, I &E Sub Division, Jangareddygudern, Eluru District

¶28

Mandal Tahsildar, Jangareddygudern Mandal, Jangareddygudern, Eluru District.

¶29

Respondents

¶30

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, one in WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondent authorities on the representations of the petitioners, seeking permission for cultivation of vacant project lands and grant of usufruct rights over the trees in such lands and limiting such permissions only to the erstwhile land owners etc., as discriminatory, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent authorities to grant one year lease for the vacant project affected lands and permit collection and sale of usufructs from the lands with tree growths to the local landless eligible persons like the petitioners of A.Polvaram Chinnavarigudem, Taduvai and Charadevarapally villages of Jangareddy gudem Mandal.

¶31

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶32

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 respondent authorities to expeditiously^consider and act upon the representations dt. 18.10.2022 and 15.07.2023 filed by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons of A.Polvaram Chinnavarigudem, Taduvai and Charadevarapally villages of Jangareddy gudem Mandal, Eluru District. . i

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PONNADA SREE WAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,4,5 & 6: GP FOR IRRIGATION & CAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2,3 & 7: GP FOR REVENUE

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

¶36

APHC010328352024

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶38

[3311]

¶39

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶40

MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶41

PRESENT

¶42

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶43

WRIT PETITION NO: 16688/2024

¶44

Between:

¶45

Yaganti Seetha and Others

¶46

...PETITIONER(S)

¶47

AND

¶48

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶49

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶50

Counsel for the Petitioner{S):

¶51

1.PONNADASREE VYAS

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶53

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶54

2.GP FOR IRRl AND CAD

¶55

The Court made the following:

¶56

ORDER:

¶57

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:

¶58

“...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent authorities on the representations of the petitioners seeking permission for cultivation of vacant project fahds and grant of usufruct rights over the trees in^suchlands.

¶59

¶60

BSB,J W.P.No.16688 of2024

¶61

and limiting such permissions only to the erstwhile land owners etc., as discriminatory illegal and unconstitutional^and consequently direct the respondent authorities to grant^one year lease for the vacant project affected lands and permit collection and sale of usufructs from the lands with tree grown to the local landless eligible persons, like the petitioners, of A.Polvaram Chinnavarigudem, Taduvai and Charadevarapally villages of Jangareddygudem Mandal and pass such other order or orders ”

¶62

The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

¶63

The lands of the petitioners were acquired for the purpose of an irrigation project, namely, Errakaluva Project, in Jangareddy Gudem Mandal of West Godavari District and they were also paid compensation. The full execution of the project appears to have been delayed. On finding that the acquired lands are lying vacant, the government, irrigation and power department, issued a memo dated 10.08.1981, permitting the erstwhile owners of the acquired lands to cultivate the same. Though the lands are still lying vacant, they are not being permitted to be cultivated by the petitioners who made a representation on 18.10.2022 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem, who has not taken action thereon so^far.

¶64

The people are aggrieved by the in-action of the authorities^as the landless and marginalized families lost livelihood support in violation of their rights under Article 14,19, 21. Hence, the writ petition^isfiled.

¶65

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the respondent authorities granted one year lease to the people who could approach the High Court and get the order, the authorities are ignoring the representation of the petitioners.

¶66

¶67

BSB,J W.P.No.16688 of2024

¶68

The learned Assistant Government Pleader placed before this Court, the written instructions of the 5^^ respondent. He further stated that the petitioners are high handedly trying to cultivate the lands submerged. It is pertinent to mention the contents of the written instructions as follows: “ The present case was filed by the petitioners for providing lease as per their representations to the Public representatives, water Resources Department authorities and Revenue authorities for granting permission/lease/cultivable/submerged land and permit^{collectionand} sale of usufruct from the lands with tree growth, that were acquired for SKKYR Reservoir Project and are unutilized, on par^{withtheerstwhile} land owners.

¶69

Further, it is to submit that, the petitioners have informed that they are landless and marginalized sections of society seeking their livelihood with manual unskilled labour and they have also been cultivating marginal extents of vacant government lands^andthatare part of acquired lands of SKKYR Reservoir whenever they are not submerged under water and making allegations that the Water Resources Department authorities are refusing to recognize and support to such cultivation and instead are threatening not to take up cultivation. It is to submit that the petitioners are threatening^theerstwhile land owners (lessees of the submerged reservoir land) and cultivating the submergent vacant lands of the SKKYR reservoir without any prior permission from the Water Resources Department. In this connection, the petitioners are warned not to cultivate and threaten the lessees of the submerged vacant lands of the SKKYR reservoir and also filed cases against them in respect of such action from them.

¶70

Further, as per the allegations made by the petitioners against the Water Resources Department for not considering the^orders of the

¶71

4 BSB,J W. P. No.16688 of 2024

¶72

Honourable High Court in WP.No.5399 of 2021. But the^Honourable High Court in its order dated 05.03.2021 mentioned that “The writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the second^{respondent(ie.,} District Collector, Eluru) to consider the individual representations stated to have been made by the petitioners and take appropriate action on the same in accordance with relevant government orders and regulations within a period of eight weeks from the^{dateofreceiptofa} copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel,^{miscellaneous} petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.”

¶73

But no directions have been issued by the competent^authorities and the Water Resources Department has considered the^ordersofthe W.P.No.24747 of 2008 and WP.No.19897 of 2021 and issued conditional lease to the erstwhile land owners. There^{isnodeviationto} the Honourable High Court orders and prevailing government^orders regarding the lease of the submergent lands of the^SKKYR reservoir project.

¶74

Further, upon the directions of the Honourable High Court regarding the above subject matter, the same will be followed scrupulously without any deviation.” 5. Along with the writ petition, a copy of the representation^madebythe petitioners and others, to the authorities has been^enclosed. The petitioners can be granted relief by the concerned authorities strictly within the parameters of the G.O’s and memos applicable. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities to consider the representation of the petitioners and take appropriate action in accordance with the relevant government orders and regulations within eight (08) weeks from the date^{ofreceiptofthecopyof} this order.

¶75

¶76

¶77

bs'b, j W.P.No.16688 of2024

¶78

:/ 1

¶79

There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶80

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶81

//TRUE COPY//

¶82

Sd/-SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶83

SECTION OFFICER

¶84

To,

¶85

The Principal Secretary, Irrigation and CAD Dept.,^{StateofAndhra} Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶86

The District Collector, Eluru District, Eluru,

¶87

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem Division, Jangareddygudem, Eluru District

¶88

The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Eluru, Eluru District.

¶89

The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Eluru, Eluru District

¶90

The Deputy Executive Engineer, I and E Sub Division,

¶91

Jangareddygudem, Eluru District

¶92

Mandal Tahsildar, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Jangareddygudem,^Eluru District.

¶93

One CC to Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, Advocate [OPUC]

¶94

Two CCs to GP for Irrigation and CAD, High Court^ofA.P.at Amaravati[OUT]

¶95

Two CC’s to GP for Revenue, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 11. Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/11/2024

ORDER

WP.No.16688 of 2024

/70
m
g 3 0 NOV 2D?'»
, Current Section . ^

¶102

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Yaganti Seetha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yaganti Seetha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Duvvru Satyvathamma(Died) Vs Vemareddy Venku Reddy

Chichili Ramesh Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Sri. Vajrala Venkata Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B Ramana Vs the State of Ap

Smt. L.R. Mangalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

N.v.Balaji, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh