Disposed

D Rakesh Reddy v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Apr 2024WP/8833/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed government officials and private individuals to consider a representation regarding illegal mud excavation from a river bund and to stop the activity after an inquiry within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider petitioner's representation and stop illegal excavation after due inquiry within two weeks of receipt of order.

D Rakesh Reddy Vs the State of Ap — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGA^==

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8833 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

D. Rakesh Reddy, S/o. D.Vijayasena Reddy, Aged 40 years, R/o. Chillakuru Village, Pellakuru Mandal, Tirupati District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

The Chief Engineer, Major Irrigation (Water Resources Department)

¶13

Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶14

The District Collector, Tirupati, Tirupati District.

¶15

The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tirupati, Tirupati District.

¶16

The Superintendent Engineer, Water Resources Department, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

¶17

The Deputy Engineer, Irrigation Department, Naidupet, Tirupati District. 7. The Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Naidupet, Tirupati District.

¶18

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sullurupeta, Tirupathi District.

¶19

The Tahsildar, Pellakuru Mandal, Pellakuru, Tirupathi District.

¶20

10.K. Satyanarayana Reddy. S/o. Sundara Ramireddy, Aged 62 years. R/o. Chillakuru Village, Pellakuru Mandal, Tirupati District.

¶21

11.K. Venugopal Reddy, S/o. Venkureddy, Aged 50 years, R/o. VidyanagarVillage. Kota Mandal, Tirupati District

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

¶24

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 any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature ;Qf Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 9 in not taking action against the Respondents 10 and 11 from illegally extracting mud from 'Swarnamukhi river bund situated in Chillakuru Village. Pellakuru Mandal, Tirupati District by considering the representation dated 26.03.2024 made by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 9 to consider the representation dated 26.03.2024 made by the petitioner by taking appropriate action against respondents 10 and 11 and to restore the river bund of Swarnamukhi River at Chiliakuru Village, Pellakuru Mandal, Tirupati District. lA NO: 1 OF 202d

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 1 to 9 to consider the representation dated 26.03.2024 made by the petitioner by taking appropriate action against respondents 10 & 11 and to restore the river bund of Swarnamukhi River at Chillakuru Village, Pellakuru Mandal, Tirupati District, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the PetitionerSRI. V. VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2.4,5,6,7,: GP FOR IRRIGATION Counsel for the Respondents No.3,8,9: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.10,11: The Court made the following; ORDER

APHC010175032024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

[3329]

¶33

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶34

PRESENT

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO: 8833/2024

Between:

D Rakesh Reddy

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others

¶42

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶44

1.VVINOD K REDDY

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶46

1 .GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV

¶47

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶48

The Court made the following Order:

¶49

Heard Sri V. Vinod K Reddy, learned counsel for the^{petitionerand}

¶50

learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶51

The brief facts cf the case are that, the 10*^ respondent^andothers are digging and excavating the mud of the Swarnamukhi River^Bankfor which the petitipner submitted representations finally^{on26.03.2024tothe} 3^"' respondent and the other respondents concerned. Even after the

¶52

¶53

receipt of the said representation, the respondents neither replied by way of any proceedings nor stopped the illegal excavation of mud in respect of Swarnamukhi River Bank. Hence, filed the present writ petition.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the said illegal excavation of mud also reported in daily newspapers i.e., eenadu and other telugu diaries. Since, 10'^ respondent is the highly influential person, the respondents kept quiet and allowing the 10*^ respondent and henchmen for causing excavation of mud in the Swarnamukhi^RiverBank. If the said action is allowed to continue for further period, floods may occur and in the rainy season, the village of the petitioner and other abutting villages will be ruined.

¶55

In view of the same, the petitioner prays that, there^shall be a direction for the respondents to restrain the illegal^{excavationofmud} in respect of Swarnamukhi River Bank.

¶56

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader furnished a copy of written instructions dated 16.04.2024, issued by the Executive Engineer, Nellore South Division, Gudur, wherein it is stated^asunder:

¶57

“the petitioner Sri D. Rakesh Reddy submitted a representation^{tothisofficeto} take action on K. Satyanarayana Reddy who illegally^{excavatedthefloodbankof} Swarnamukhi river in Chillakur village and used it for leveling land of his relative K. Venugopal Reddy in Sy.No.248/4 for an extent of 1.29 Ac in Chillakur village. The representation was forwarded to the concerned field staff i.e., DEE, AE of Vakadu Sub-Division to inquire and submit the detailed report to this office. But, the field staff couldn’t submit their detailed report^{onthisissueasallthefieldstaff}

¶58

¶59

¶60

are deployed in election duties. Hence, request the Hon’ble High court to grant sufficient time on the above matter for conducting detailed inquiry on this issue.”

¶61

On perusal of the written instructions, it reveals that, since, the Election schedule is going on, they are not in a position to take any action or to ascertain the infc i mation whether the alleged^{excavationofmudfrom} the Swarnamukhi River Bank is taking place or not.

¶62

Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned^counsel and on perusal of the written instructions of the 4‘^ respondent, it appears that, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 26.03.2024 and specifically alleging that the 10'*^ respondent and their henchmen are causing damage to the Swarnamukhi Flood Bank. Even though the said representation was received by the respondents, they kept quite all these days, but by way of written instructions, they took^{shelterthatthefieldstaff} is involved in the election process pursuant to the^{electionscheduleissued} on 16.03.2024. The instructions submitted by the 4 respondent are far away from the truth as the respondents are allowing the illegal activity of the excavation of mud from the Swarnamukhi River Bank/ Flood Bank by the unofficial respondents.

¶63

In view of the reasons stated above, the illegal excavation^ofmud should not be permitted, as the said Flood Bank was^{constructedwiththe} funds of the Government to safeguard the abutting villages of the Swarnamukhi River. The said action of the respondents is very much

¶64

irresponsible and high-handed in nature as such, the said action shall be deprecated.

¶65

It is settled principle of law that without there being any valid permission, no person can be allowed either to excavate or to occupy the bund of any river or natural courses / streams and canals. Even though, this principle was enunciated time and again by the Hop.’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in ‘n’ number of occasions, there is a specific allegation against Respondent No. 10 who is excavating / digging the bund of Swarnamukhi River is contrary to the law and also against the public interest.

¶66

Therefore, the Respondents herein specifically directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.03.2024 forthwith and take • steps to stop the illegal excavation as contended by the petitioner after due enquiry in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶67

With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs, Miscellaneous petitions pending if any. shall stand closed.

¶68

//TRUE COPY//

¶69

SD/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECfirofsToFFICER

¶70

To,

¶71

1.The Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, State^{ofAndhraPradesh,} Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶72

The Chief Engineer, Major Irrigation (Water Resources^Department),

¶73

Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶74

The District Collector, Tirupati, Tirupati District.

¶75

¶76

¶77

4.The Executive Engineer. Irrigation Department, Tirupati, Tirupati District.

¶78

The Superintendent Engineer, Water Resources Department, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

¶79

The Deputy Engineer, Irrigation Department, Naidupet, Tirupati District.

¶80

The Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Naidupet, Tirupati District.

¶81

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sullurupeta, Tirupathi^District.

¶82

The Tahsildar, Pellakuru Mandal, Pellakuru, Tirupathi^District.

¶83

11.K. Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Sundara Ramireddy, Aged 62 years, R/o. Chillakuru Village, Pellakuru Mandal, Tirupati^District.

¶84

12.K. Venugopal Reddy, S/o. Venkureddy, Aged 50 years,^R/o. Vidyanagar Village, Kota Mandal, Tirupati District

¶85

13.0ne CC to SRI. V VINOD K REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶86

14.Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶87

[OUT]

¶88

15.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra^Pradesh. [OUT]

¶89

Three C.D.Copies

¶90

¶91

¶92

HIGH COURT DATED:23/04/2024

¶93

ORDER

¶94

WP.No.8833 of 2024

¶95

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

D Rakesh Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Rakesh Reddy v. the State of Ap

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

Cherlopalli Narasamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kota Janardha Reddy Vs the State of Ap

B Venkateswarlu Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Rama Subba Reddy, Vs Sasi Busan Kumar, IAS

G Sunitha Vs the State of Ap

Yenni Satyanarayana Vs Korda Narayana