Ghattamaneni Rajendra Prasad v. The Engineer In Chief, Irrigation,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [Special Original Jurisdiction] TUESDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRAURY TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION NO. 32083 OF 2011 Between:

Ghattamaneni Rajendra Prasad ... Petitioner Vs.

The Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation, Hyderabad & Ors. ... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Lakskhminarayana Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Irrigation & CAD The Court made the following: [order follows]

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION NO.32083 OF 2011 O R D E R :

Heard Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

2. The petitioner prays for the following prayer: "Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in removing the existing pipeline for taking water from Krishna East Bank Canal [KEB canal] to irrigate the lands of petitioner in an extent of Ac:kk9-56 cents situated in survey No. 1254, 1255, 12k5k6 and 125k7 at Goginenipalem village, Ghantasala Mandal, Krishna district is illegal, arbitrary and high handed and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India in spite of renewal applications dated 02/5/k1998 and 14/6/k2010 made by the petitioner are pending before the third respondent which was made pursuant to the notice issued by the third respondent dated 24/4/k1998 and consequently to direct the respondents not to remove the existing pipeline of the petitioner."

3. At the time of hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the third respondent through his Memo No. CB/CB 565/M dated 24/4/1998 has called upon the petitioner to apply for renewal of permission granted in fravour of petitioner for drawing water from Krishna East Bank canal to irrigate petitioner's land covered by survey Nos. 1254, 1255, 1256 and 1257 at

Goginenipalem village, Ghantasala Mandal, Krishna district. According to the counsel, applications for renewal were made on 02/5/1998 and 14/6/20910. The third respondent without passing orders on the pending applications and contrary to the intention expressed in the memo dated 24/4/1998 threatened to dismantle the pipeline, hence the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader requests time to file counter-affidavit.

5. Having regard to the facts that the writ petition is pending from 2011 onwards I am not inclined to grant time for filing counter-affidavit. However, having regard to the limited grievance canvassed by the petitioner, I am disposing of the writ petition as follows:

[a] The petitioner is given liberty to submit Xerox copy of applications dated 2/5/1998 and 14/6/2010 with a copy of this order within four weeks from today to third respondent. The third respondent on receipt of such application, having regard to the memo dated 20/4/1998 passes appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

6. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

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

​ ___________________ JUSTICE S.V. BHATT 16/02/2016 I s L HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION NO. 32083 OF 2011

Date: 16/2/2016 Circulation No.

Court Master: I s L