Dismissed

V.Ananda Raju, v. The Superintending Engineer

Telangana HC3 Dec 2012WP/35692/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the issuance of permission for altering the alignment of an irrigation distributory canal. The Court noted the canal was already dug and permitted based on representations by local ayacutdars, finding no demonstrable illegality or lack of opportunity to the petitioner. The petition was dismissed, and no interference was granted in technical irri

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no order as to costs.

V.Ananda Raju, Vs The Superintending Engineer — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.35692 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Petitioner is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.07 cents covered by Survey No.113-A of Kowthalam Village, Kurnool District. In this Writ Petition, he has questioned the validity of proceedings bearing No.SE/IC/KNL/TW/ATO-1/W1/No.486 TBP, dated – 10.08.2012, issued by the first respondent Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Kurnool District.

¶5

There is a distributory canal, by name, Madhavaram Major Distributory under Tungabhadra Project, for irrigation. Some of the ayacutdars have made a representation stating that the distributory canal is running nearly more than one kilometer through non-ayacut land and thereby, they requested for change of alignment. Based on such representation, the second respondent - Executive Engineer, Tungabhadra Project Division, Adoni, conducted enquiry and addressed letter, dated 04.08.2012, to the first respondent recommending that to avoid water to 200 acres of non-ayacut land and to supply water to tail end ayacutdars, it is better to accord

¶6

permission for excavation of new distributory channel as represented by the local ayacutdars. Referring to such letter, the first respondent issued impugned proceedings.

¶7

In the Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings are issued without conducting any enquiry and without giving him proper opportunity.

¶8

When the matter came up on an earlier occasion, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions. When the matter is taken up today, on instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development appearing for the respondents that the distributory canal is already dug and further, the impugned proceedings are issued based on the letter addressed by the second respondent in pursuance of the representation of the ayacutdars.

¶9

During the course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel that even the new distributory canal, for which permission has been accorded by the first respondent in the impugned proceedings, is not passing through the land of the petitioner. In any event, it is to be noted that change of distributory canals for irrigation purpose is a matter, which is in the realm of the experts in

¶10

the field so as to examine which alignment is beneficial to the ayacutdars. In the absence of any demonstrable illegality in issuing the impugned proceedings, normally, this Court would be slow in interfering with such kind of matters. As it is submitted that the impugned proceedings are issued based on letter, dated 04.08.2012 addressed by the second respondent in pursuance of the representation filed by majority of the ayacutdars seeking to avoid distributory canal through non-ayacut lands and further, new distributory canal is already dug, I do not find any illegality in issuing impugned proceedings by the first respondent.

¶11

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶12

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.45361 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶13

______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 3^rd DECEMBER, 2012. kvni

V.Ananda Raju, v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ananda Raju, v. The Superintending Engineer

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

Muripala Nagendra, Vs Shanwaz Khan

N.Janardhan Rao, Vs Arokiyaraj

Smt. Kusumba Sunitha, Vs The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its

Smt. Batchali Varalakshmi Vs Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited

Singareni Collieries Sc and St Employees Welfare Association, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Jwala Narasimham Vs The District Registrar