Disposed

Yannam Reddy Koti Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Feb 2024WP/2336/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the failure of government authorities to remove encroachments by two individuals on a water canal bund, allegedly obstructing public passage. The petitioner relied on a prior Lokayukta order directing removal. The Court noted a pending batch decided that official authorities must identify and remove encroachments following due process. Accordingly, the Court directed

What did the court decide?

The Court directed Respondents 5 to 10 to remove the encroachments made by Respondents 11 and 12 on the Yerrakaluva bund by following due process of law.

Yannam Reddy Koti Reddy Vs the State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2336 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Yannam Reddy Koti Reddy, S/o.Venkat Reddy, Aged about 54 years, R/o.D.No.6-973120b, Road No.01,DVR Nagar, Jaggayyapet Town, Krishna District.

¶9

Sambhagani Srinivas, S/o.Ranga Rao, Aged about 50 years, R/o.D.No.6-147, Seetharamapuram, Kodad Road, Jaggayyapet Town, Krishna District.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban-Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur^District.

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶15

The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Water Resources Department (WRD) 14-7-29, 2nd Floor, Namboori Gopala Rao Street, Hanumanpet, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶16

The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam.

¶17

Jaggayyapet Municipality, Rep.by its Commissioner, Jaggayyapet Town, Krishna District.

¶18

The Tahsildar, Jaggayyapet Mandal, Krishna District.

¶19

The Executive Engineer, Munneru Sub Division, Jaggayyapet,^Krishna District.

¶20

The Deputy Executive Engineer, Munneru Sub Division,^Jaggayyapet, Krishna District.

¶21

lO.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Munneru Sub Division,^Jaggayyapet Krishna District.

¶22

11 .Abdul Vaheeda, D/o.Rahamon, R/o.D.No.6-1200, Yerrakaluvakatt^a, Kodada Road, Jaggaiahpeta Town, Krishna District.

¶23

12.Darla Dasu, S/o.Not known of the Petitioner R/o.D.No.6-1199, Yerrakaluvakatta, Kodada Road, Jaggaiahpeta Town, Krishna^District.

¶24

...RESPONDENTS

¶25

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 the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not taking steps to remove the unauthorized occupations illegal constructions and encroachments bearing Door Nos.6-1200 and 6-1199, respectively made by the respondents 11 and 12 on Yerrakaluva (Water Canal) and thereby obstructing the public passage to reach the petitioners lands situated in Survey No.302/2 in Jaggaiahpeta Town^{inKrishnaDistrict} in spite of the Common Order in Complaint Nos.3558/2012 and 5469/2013/BI, dated 06.06.2016 passed by the Honourable Lokayukta at Hyderabad,as illegal, irregular, irrational and to contrary to G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07-04-2012 and offends Articles 14, 19, 21 and^{300-AofConstitution} of India and consequently direct the respondents to remove the unauthorized/illegal constructions of the respondents 11 to 12 in Survey No.302/2 in Jaggaiahpeta Town in Krishna District.

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶27

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

¶28

pleased to direct the respondents to remove the unauthorized/ill egal constructions of the respondents 11 to 12 on Yerrakaluva (Canal) adjoining the Survey No.302/2 in Jaggaiahpeta Town in Krishna District, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioners : Mrs. SAHITYA REDDY FOR SRI V.N.V.SURYA DATTU

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 5 & 7 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3, 4, 8 to 10 : GP FOR IRRIGATION AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI G. NARESH KUAR FOR SRI M. MANOHAR REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.11 & 12 : SRI P. NAGENDRA REDDY

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶37

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶38

WRIT PETITION No.2336 of 2022

¶39

Yannam Reddy Koti Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, aged about 54 years, R/o D.No.6-973/20b, Road No.Ol, DVR Nagar, Jaggayyapet Town, Krishna District and another.

¶40

... Petitioners

¶41

Versus

¶42

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretar}'^ to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and 11 others

¶43

... Respondents

¶44

Counsel for the petitioners Sri V.N.V. Surya Dattu Counsel for respondents GP for Revenue; GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development; GP for Irrigation; Sri M. Manohar Reddy, standing counsel and Sri P. Nagendra Reddy

¶45

ORDER

¶46

Petitioners, residents of Jaggayyapet Town, Krishna District filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief;

¶47

"... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action

¶48

Page 2 of 8

¶49

SRSJ W.P.No.2336 of 2022

¶50

of the respondents in not taking steps to remove the unauthorized occupations illegal constructions and encroachments bearing Door Nos.6-1200 and 6-1199, respectively made by the respondents 11 and 12 on Yerrakaluva (Water Canal) and thereby obstructing the public passage to reach the petitioners lands situated inL: Survey No.302/2 in Jaggaiahpeta Town in Krishna District i n: spite of the Common Order in Complaint Nos.3558/2012 and 5469/2013/Bl, dated 06.06.2016 passed by the HonWe Lokayukta at Hyderabad, as illegal, irregular, irrational and to contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 168, dated 07.04.2012 and offends Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to remove the unauthorized/illegal constructions of the respondents 11 to 12 in Survey No.302/2 in Jaggaiahpeta Town in Krishna District and pass such other order or orders ...”

¶51

In the affidavit, it was contended that petitioners own land

¶52

in survey No.302/2 and on the Western side of the land Yerrakaluva is situated. Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 encroached Yerrakaluva due to which the only passage to reach petitioners’ land IS blocked. Though objections were raised, the respondent

¶53

Page 3 of 8 SRS, J W.P.No.2336 of 2022

¶54

Nos. 11 and 12 did not heed to the objections. Therefore, the adjacent land owners filed complaint Nos.3558/2012 and 5469/2013/Bl before the learned Lokayukta. The Tahsildar, Jaggaiahpeta/respondent No.7 submitted encroachers list by showing 284 illegal occupants including respondent Nos. 11 and 12. The learned Lokayukta passed order dated 06.06.2016 directing the Deputy Executive Engineer, Munjiyeru Sub Division, Jaggayyapet, to remove all the encroachments^within three months from the date of receipt of said order.^Thereafter, the petitioners submitted representation to all the official respondents for taking legal action against respondent^Nos.11 and 12. Respondent No.7 addressed letter to Deputy^Executive Engineer/respondent No.9 for initiating necessary action,^whoin turn, addressed letter to respondent Nos.5 to 8 i.e. District Collector, Commissioner of Jaggayyapet Municipality,^Tahsildar and Executive Engineer, Munneru Sub Division, informing^that respondent Nos. 11 and 12 do not have ‘No Objection^Certificate (NOC) from the Water Resources Department. Despite confirming respondent Nos. 11 and 12 as encroachers,^noaction has been taken. Hence, the writ petition.

¶55

Page 4 of 8

¶56

SRS, J W.P.No.2336 of 2022

¶57

Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.6. It was contended, inter alia, that no constructions are allowed in water bodies. Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 encroached Yerrakaluva bund and raised constructions without any permission. The subject land belongs to Irrigation Department as it is irrigation channel and respondent No.9 is responsible to protect the same. If any joint operation is organized, the authority will cooperate in removing the encroachments.

¶58

Counter affidavit, deposed by respondent No.9 is filed on behalf of respondents Nos.4, 8, 9 and 10. It was contended that respondent Nos.8 to 10 are not competent authorities to evict the encroachments. The Panchayat Secretary and Revenue Authority are the competent authorities to remove the encroachments.

¶59

Heard Mrs. Sahitya Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri V.N.V. Surya Dattu, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1, 5 and 7, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation for respondent Nos.3, 4, 8, 9 and 10. Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned standing^counsel

¶60

Page 5 of 8 SRS,J W.P.No.2336 of 2022

¶61

for respondent No.6 and Sri P. Nagendra Reddy for respondent Nos. 11 and 12.

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating^the contentions as per the averments in the affidavit,^wouldfurther submit that inspite of clear communication among the^official respondents, the authorities, for the reasons best known, are not taking steps to remove the encroachment. She also^further contended that the encroachment of irrigation bund^isviolative of Article 51-A of the Constitution of India.

¶63

The learned counsel for the official respondents reiterated their contentions as per averments in their respective^counter affidavits.

¶64

Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 11 and 12 would submit that entire Yerrakaluva was encroached by many people and in fact. Government office^also existed.

¶65

Thus, as seen from the material available on record,^there is no dispute that Yerrakaluva bund was encroached by a number of people including respondent Nos. 11 and 12. The

¶66

Page 6 of 8

¶67

SRS,J W.P.No.2336 of 2022

¶68

communications dated 26.10.2021 and 15.11.2021 made among respondent Nos. 7, 9 and 6 would disclose about the encroachments. However, the authorities are shifting the liability from one to the other. Issue with regard to protection of government lands of different classifications fell for consideration in W.p. (PIL) No. 140 of 2022 and batch, wherein learned Division Bench, disposed of the same with the following directions:

¶69

(i). The Executive authority, i.e., Panchayat Secretary,^of the respective Gram Panchayats in the State shall identify the Gram Panchayat lands which are unauthorizedly occupied/encroached, and take steps for removal of such encroachments by issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unaturhotized occupants/encroachers in terms of the procedure prescribed in Rules of 2011. This complete exercise shall be done within a period of six months from today.

¶70

(ii). So far as the encroachments over the lands concerning the Municipalities/Forest Department / Revenue Department are concerned, even if no separate Rules have been framed prescribing the procedure to be followed in the matter of removal of encroachments over those lands, the officials of the concerned Department, i.e., the Departments of Municipal Administration, Forest and Revenue, shall also undertake and complete the exercise of identification of

¶71

Page 7 of 8

¶72

SRS,J W.P.No.2336 of 2022

¶73

unaturhozied occupations/encroachments over the lands belonging to their respective Departments, within a^periodof two months from today, and thereafter, take steps for removal of such encroachments by following the principles^of natural justice, i.e., issuing notice and providing^opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/encroachers, within a further period of four months.”

¶74

In the case at hand, since there is no dispute that respondent Nos. 11 and 12 encroached upon Yerrakaluva^bund. respondent Nos. 5 to 10 shall take steps to remove the encroachments made by respondent Nos. 11 and 12 by following due process of law.

¶75

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed^of. No costs.

¶76

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shall stand dismissed.

¶77

//TRUE COPY//

¶78

Sd/- SHAIK MOHD RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI^ OFFICER

¶79

To,

¶80

The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department,^Stateof Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶81

The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal^{Administrationand} Urban-Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶82

The Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department,^Stateof Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur^District.

¶83

The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Water Resources Department (WRD) 14-7-29, 2nd Floor, Namboori Gopala Rao Street, Hanumanpet, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶84

The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam.

¶85

The Commissioner, Jaggayyapet Municipality, Jaggayyapet Town, Krishna District.

¶86

The Tahsildar, Jaggayyapet Mandal, Krishna District.

¶87

The Executive Engineer, Munneru Sub Division, Jaggayyapet,^Krishna District.

¶88

The Deputy Executive Engineer, Munneru Sub Division, Jaggayyapet, Krishna District.

¶89

10.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Munneru Sub Division, Jaggayyapet, Krishna District.

¶90

One CC to Sri V.N.V.Surya Dattu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶91

12.Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶92

Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admn & Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶93

Two CCs to GP for Irrigation and Command Area Development High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶94

One CC to Sri M. Manohar Reddy, SC for Municipality (OPUC) 16. One CC to Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 17. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr gi 1(2'^ DV-

HIGH COURT

DATED:14/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.2336 of 2022

3/5^^

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Yannam Reddy Koti Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yannam Reddy Koti Reddy 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

S. Bhagyavathi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kovvuri Pundarikaksha Reddy,Vsp Vs State of Ap,Rep.by Prl.Scy,Mun Adm,Hyd,and Another

Smt.Chinna Ramakka Vs the State of Ap

Alla Rajani Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

U.Kumari Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ashoknagar Citizens Association, Kurnool, Vs The Govt.of A.P.