HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.24766 of 2014 Date : 9-12-2014 Between:
D. Venkataraju and others .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri M.S.P. Kamaraju Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation & CAD Counsel for respondent No.6 : Ms. V. Santhi Sree The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in removing the obstructions placed by respondent No.6 on the main canal of Annamaiah Project of Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioners claim to be the agriculturists of Hasthivaripalli. Evidently, with a view to have access to the stone crusher, respondent No.6 has unauthorisedly constructed a bridge across the main canal at 8 K.M. of Annamaiah Project. As the petitioners and some others have objected to the said construction on the ground that the same is blocking the flow of water in the canal, the official respondents evidently asked respondent No.6 to remove the temporary bridge. This has impelled respondent No.6 to file W.P.No.19730 of 2009. In the said Writ Petition, the Irrigation Department filed a counter affidavit wherein it was inter alia averred that the temporary bridge was constructed across the A.P. Main Canal at 7.6 K.M. unauthorisedly and without taking any permission from the Irrigation Department; that due to the construction of the temporary bridge, the canal lining inspection track got damaged and the flow of the canal is obstructed and that due to the obstruction of flow of canal, the ayacut is affected. It was further stated that the temporary bridge must be removed. Considering the respective pleadings of the parties, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by order dated 3-2-2010 with the direction to the Engineer-in- Chief, Irrigation and Command Area Development Department to consider the grievance of respondent No.6 and others and take appropriate decision within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. This Court, has further directed that status quo obtaining as on that day shall be maintained till such decision is taken. After the disposal of the said Writ Petition, the Engineer-in-Chief vide proceedings No.DCE-3/OT5(Med)/AEE/ANP/74365/Vol. VIII, dated 6-5-2010 has permitted respondent No.6 and others to construct a pucca bridge after removing the temporary bridge. As the temporary bridge was not removed even for a period of four years, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition.
After the filing of this Writ Petition, respondent No.4 issued notice No.EE/ASP/Kadapa/DB/384M, dated 5-9- 2014 to respondent No.6 and four others wherein he has referred to the proceedings dated 6-5-2010 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Hyderabad and called upon them to remove the temporary bridge and construct a permanent bridge at their own expense.
The fact that the Engineer-in-Chief has permitted respondent No.6 and others to remove the temporary bridge and construct a permanent bridge at their expense is not disputed by the learned Counsel for respondent No.6. She has also not disputed the fact that respondent No.4 has issued the above mentioned notice dated 5-9-2014 directing respondent No.6 and others to remove the temporary bridge within one week. Considering the stand taken by the Irrigation Department in W.P.No.19730 of 2009 that the temporary bridge has been affecting the free flow of water in the canal and thereby affecting the ayacut, the non-removal of the temporary bridge for a period of more than 4½ years after issuance of the proceedings by the Engineer-in-Chief cannot be justified. Even after respondent No.6 and others were permitted to construct a permanent bridge at their expense, they cannot avoid removal of the temporary bridge first which was the condition stipulated by the Engineer-in- Chief while granting permission for construction of a permanent bridge.
In the light of the above facts, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to respondent Nos.3 to 5 to ensure that the temporary bridge is forthwith removed at the expenses of respondent No.6 and others and intimate the same to the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.31009 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 9-12-2014 AM