HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28554 of 2014 Date:07.10.2014 Between:
Manda China Babu, S/o Satyanarayana . Petitioner And:
The Govt of A.P., Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, Hyderabad and another.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Irrigation and CAD of the Government of Andhra Pradesh The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside letter No.D.B/T.A-1/China Kapavaram/739m, dated 19.08.2014, of respondent No.2, whereby he has informed one Manda Polaiah, S/o Satyanarayana that without permission of the Irrigation Department, a building, wherein a liquor shop is being run, is constructed over the right bank of China Kapavaram drain. He has, therefore, called upon the said Manda Polaiah to voluntarily remove the said building within three days, failing which, action according to law will be taken.
I have heard Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
The main grievance of the petitioner, who claims to be the lessee from the original owner of the building, is that no prior notice was issued either to him or to the original owner before the impugned letter of respondent No.2 was issued.
Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation fairly conceded that no prior notice was issued.
In my opinion, respondent No.2 cannot unilaterally conclude that the site on which the building has been constructed and liquor shop is being run forms part of China Kapavaram drain. He can come to such a conclusion only after proper notice to the owner or the occupant of the premises and after examining the material that may be placed before him. As the petitioner claims to be in occupation of the building as a lessee, he is permitted to submit his explanation along with the supporting material, to show that the building is not constructed on China Kapavaram drain, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon examining the explanation and the material, if any, that may be placed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall pass an order in writing and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till passing of such order, the respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner’s running of the liquor shop in the said building. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision that may be taken by the respondents, he shall be free to file a civil suit for appropriate relief.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.35748 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief stands disposed of as infructuous.
07th October, 2014 DR
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY