Telangana High Court
WP/25523/2002 of Pilla Applaswamy Vs The Assistant Engineer, on 26 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25523 of 2002 Between: Pilla Applaswamy S/o Appanna R/o Kavitam, Poduru Mandal,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 25523 of 2002
Between:
Pilla Applaswamy S/o Appanna R/o Kavitam, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Assistant Engineer, Irragation Section, Martair, Pemumantra Mandal, West Godavari District.
2 The Mandal Revenue Officer,
Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particualrly inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondentsproposed action aganist the petitioners lands (1) Ac.1.59cents inR.S.No.150/1, (2) Ac.0.35 cents in R.S.No.147/9, (3)Ac.2.24 centsR.S.No.1152/2, (4) Ac.0.48 cents R.S.No.150/3A, (5)Ac.0.20 centsR.S.No.154/2A, (6) Ac.1.08 cents R.S.No.157/4, (7) Ac.0.96 centsR.S.No.142/2, (8)Ac.0.10 cents R.S.No.151/10A, (9) 0.05 centsR.S.No.142/1, and (10) Ac.No.1.08 cents R.S.No.143/4B ofJagannadhapuram Village, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District totalingan extent of Ac.8.58 cents as illegal, arbitrary.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOTABHASKARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREADEV.
The Court made the following :
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYW.P.No.25523 of 2002
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner challenges notice, dated 19.12.2002 issued by theAssistant Engineer-first respondent. Through the impugned notice, the firstrespondent alleged that the petitioner had cultivated the land under PipeNo.31 of an Irrigation project though it was not identified for the second crop.The petitioner states that even when water is not released through canal orpipe for the second crop, cultivation was being undertaken through bore wellsand in that view of the matter, the impugned notice cannot be sustained inlaw.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader for Irrigation.
The impugned notice was issued in relation to the second crop forFasali 1412. The notice by itself does not have any reflection on the rights ofthe petitioner on the regular basis or permanent basis. The allocation ofwater for second crop under the project depends on the availability of thewater and other similar factors. The interim order passed by this court hasalready been taken care of the second crop of that particular year. Therefore,nothing needs to be decided in this writ petition and it is accordingly closed.There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
To1.2CCs to2.2CD copies
Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MN}
// TRUE COPY //
..... REGISTRARSECTION OFFICER