Allowed

V.Rajagopal Reddy v. The District Collector

Telangana HC1 Oct 2013WP/14306/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order removing a road obstructing Budur Tank's water flow, the Court obtained a technical report. Instead of ordering road removal, the Court directed the construction of a low-level causeway or additional pipe culverts to balance village access needs with unimpeded water discharge, disallowing the removal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned proceedings for removal of road; direct respondents to construct low-level causeway or add pipe rows as per Chief Engineer's report.

V.Rajagopal Reddy Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.14306 of 2013

¶3

Date:01.10.2013

¶4

Between: V.Rajagopal Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy and 13 others.

¶5

…..Petitioners

¶6

And: The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District and two others.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.Gangarami Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Revenue

¶9

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order, dated 21.03.2013 issued in Form No.20, under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by respondent No.2, whereby he has made absolute show cause notice, dated 15.02.2013, for removal of road, which is obstructing free flow of water into Budur tank, Doravarisatram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶11

The petitioners are residents of Utchuru Village, Doravarisatram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. It is their pleaded case that the Water User’s Association of Budur tank has passed a resolution permitting the formation of road from Budur Roads and Buildings road to Utchuru and that the Panchayat Raj Department sanctioned Rs.10

¶12

lakhs for repairs and restoration of the road under NEM funds, vide proceedings No.AEE6/DEEII/NEM/NLR-3, dated 03.06.2011. The petitioners further pleaded that the said work was completed. While so, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned proceedings for removal of the road on the ground that the same is causing obstruction to free flow of water into Budur tank.

¶13

Having regard to the allegation of obstruction of free flow of water into Budur tank, this Court has directed the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Jalasoudha, Hyderabad to inspect Budur tank and submit a report. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer has submitted a detailed report after inspection, wherein he has, inter alia, made the following observations:

¶14

“3. (i) The Budur tank is situated in the Village limits of Budur of D.V.Satram (M) of SPSR Nellore District.

¶15

(ii) As seen in the site, a gravel road was formed partially in the foreshore area of Budur tank and partially above Full Tank Level (FTL) of the tank. According to local people version at site, this road was formed originally in the year 1980. (iii) It is observed that the total length of road formed is about 850 meters and about 400 meters length of road is within the FTL of the tank and it is clearly depicted in the Village map enclosed. (iv) It is observed that some unknown persons breached the road at two places, as such, the road is not in use at present.

¶16

(v) At present a pipe culvert having 5 rows of 900mm dia pipes is existing on the road at the feeding channel crossing, in order to allow flow of water into Budur tank. The main source of water feeding to the said tank is this supply channel. (vi) As per the report of Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Nellore, the registered ayacut under Budur tank is 210 acres and the discharge through 5 pipes will be 280 cusecs, the tank will be filled within one day. The discharging capacity of Budur tank weir is about 503 cusecs. Hence, to allow maximum capacity of discharge i.e., 503 cusecs another 4 rows of 900 dia pipes are required

¶17

or a low leval causeway is to be constructed.”

¶18

In para 5 of his report, the Chief Engineer observed as under:

¶19

“The road work was sanctioned by Engineer-inChief, Panchayat Raj Department, vide proceeding No.AEE6/DEE II/NEM/NLR-3/2011, dated 03.06.2011 for Rs.10.00 lakhs. Sri Vakati Narayan Reddy, MLC has represented to District Collector that road will be useful to the Villagers of Uchuru and the distance from Uchuru (V) to the Mandal H.Q will be reduced by 16 km (representation enclosed).

¶20

From a perusal of the report of the Chief Engineer, it is evident that the existing road is causing part obstruction to free flow of water into Budur tank. In order to obviate this situation, the Chief Engineer has recommended to place additional four rows of 900 mm dia pipes besides the existing five rows of pipes to ensure maximum capacity of discharge i.e., 503 cusecs or construction of a low level causeway. The report further shows that by proceedings, vide No.AEE6/DEEII/NEM/NLR-3/2011, dated 03.06.2011, of the Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj Department, a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was sanctioned for the road work.

¶21

Considering the fact that the distance from Utchuru Village to the Mandal Headquarters will be reduced from 32 kms to 16 kms, this Court feels that complete removal of the road would cause serious prejudice to the interests of the residents of Budur Village. Instead, it would be expedient if the interests of the villagers and the ayacutdars of Budur tank are balanced. If the recommendations of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, are implemented, interests of both the parties will be protected. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside. The respondents are directed to ensure that the improvements to the existing road are undertaken either by constructing a low level causeway or placing additional

¶22

four rows of 900 mm dia pipes, as suggested by the Chief Engineer in his report.

¶23

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶24

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.17433 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶26

01^st October 2013 DR

V.Rajagopal Reddy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Rajagopal Reddy v. The District Collector

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

Gyara Pentaiah and 77 Others Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Tenancy

Mohammed Ashwaq Ahmed Vs The State of A.P

Y. Thirupathi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Dr.Kanagala Venkataratnam Vs B.R.Meena, I.A.S.

M/s.Sai Krupa Enterprises Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Nalmela Narsaiah , Narsa Reddy Vs The District Collector