i APHC010125662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ,, 1 TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ' PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 6318 OF 207.*; Between: 1. Doranaduala'rCeddamma, W/o. Nagaraj Chetty, Aged about 66 years, #108, 6th Cross, Sainagar 2nd phase, C B Halli, VTC Bangalore, PO Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore District. 2. V. Udaya Kumar, S/o. Venkataramaiah, Age 63 years, #33, Flat F-1, SLV comforts 3rd Main Road, Ramanjaneya Nagar, Chikkalasandra, Bangalore South, Bangalore, Karnataka State. 3. Ravikumar V, S/o V. Venkataramaiah, Age 54, No. 13/5, CHS 249, 2nd Cross, Near Govt School, 4th Phase Bangalore North, Bangalore, Yelahanka- 560064 years. Yelahanka New Town 4. V K. Rama, W/o VCR Chetty, Age 63 1014, 11th #Ramya Sadana, No. Hampinagar, Bangalore North, Bangalore, Main, Karnataka- 560040. 5. V.C. Reddappa Chetty, S/o V. Venkataramaiah, Sadana, No. 1014, 11th Bangalore, Karnataka- 560040. Age 75, Ramya Hampinagar, Bangalore North, Main 6. Ch. Sri Rama Reddy, S/o, Laxmi Reddy, Age 55 years, 2-15, Marasalavandlapalli. Marasanapalli Panchayat, Chilamathur Mandal Sri Satya Sai District. # 7. A. Adi Reddy S/o, Late A. Malli Reddy Age 58 years, Marasalavandlapalli. Marasanapalli Panchayat, Chilamathur Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. 8. S. Chowdi Reddy, S/o, Govinda Reddy, Age 50 years. Main Street, MadirePalli, Chilamathur Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. 9. S. Srinivasa Reddy, S/o S. G. Govinda Reddy, Age 39 years, 8-31 Main Street, MadirePalli, Chilamathur Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. District Collector, Satya Sai District. - 3. Executive Engineer, I.B. Division, Penugonda, Satya Sai District. 4. Asst Executive Engineer, I.B.Section, Chilamathur, Satya Sai District, v ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned Notice dated 18/02/2025 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and fair play and against Articles 14,19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents demolish the foot bridge constructed by the petitioners, farmers and other villagers of Kodur Village by pooling funds to minimize the distance of 12 km to 300 meters. .21 not to lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent continue the existence of the foot bridge which is constructed by pooling funds by the petitioners, farmers and villagers of Kodur Village even though the Government did not construct the foot bridge for the benefit of the farmers and villagers of Kodur village pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Executive Engineer, I.B. Division, Penugonda, Satya Sai District. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. Doranaduala Reddamma, W/o. Nagaraj Chetty, Aged about 66 years, #108, 6th Cross, Sainagar 2nd phase, C B Halli, VTC Bangalore, PO Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore District. 2. V. Udaya Kumar, S/o. Venkataramaiah, Age 63 years, #33, Flat F-1, SLV comforts 3rd Main Road, Ramanjaneya Nagar, Chikkalasandra, Bangalore South, Bangalore, Karnataka State. 3. Ravikumar V, S/o V. Venkataramaiah, Age 54, No. 13/5, CFIS 249, 2nd Cross, Near Govt School, 4th Phase, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore North, Bangalore, Yelahanka- 560064 4. V K. Rama, W/o VCR Chetty, Age 63 years 1014, 11th Karnataka- 560040. 5. V.C. Reddappa Chetty, S/o V. Venkataramaiah, Age 75, Ramya Sadana, No. 1014, 11th Bangalore, Karnataka- 560040. 6. Ch. Sri Rama Reddy, S/o, Laxmi Reddy, Age 55 years, 2-15, Marasalavandlapalli. Marasanapalli Panchayat, Chilamathur Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. #Ramya Sadana, No. Hampinagar, Bangalore North, Bangalore, Main Main Hampinagar, Bangalore North, 7. A. Adi Reddy, S/o, Late A. Malli Reddy Age 58 years Marasalavandlapalli. Marasanapalli Panchayat, Chilamathur Mandal Sri Satya Sai District. 8. S. Chowdi Reddy, S/o, Govinda Reddy, Age MadirePalli, Chilamathur Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. 9. S. Srinivasa Reddy, S/o S. G. Govinda Reddy, Age Main Street, MadirePalli, Chilamathur Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. ...Respondents/Writ Petitioners 10. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal SecretaryHrrigation Department Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 11. District Collector, Satya Sai District. 12. Asst Executive Engineer, I.B.Section, Chilamathur, Satya Sai District. 50 years. Main Street, 39 years, 8-31 ...Respondents/ Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the-interim orders dated: 12.03.2025 passed ih W.P.No.6318 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KARUPOLU NARASIMHA^AO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4: GP FOR IRRIGTATION & COMM AREA DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010125662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 6318/2025 Between: 1.DORANADUALA REDDAMMA, W/0. NAGARAJ CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 108, 6TH CROSS, SAINAGAR2ND PHASE, C B HALLI, VTC BANGALORE, PO VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE DISTRICT. 2.V. UDAYA KUMAR,, S/0. VENKATARAMAIAH, AGE 63 YEARS, 33, FLAT F-1, SLV COMFORTS 3RD MAIN ROAD, RAMANJANEYA NAGAR, CHIKKALASANDRA, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE. 3.RAVIKUMAR V,, S/0 V. VENKATARAMAIAH, AGE 54, NO. 13/5, CHS 249, 2ND CROSS, NEAR GOVT SCHOOL, PHASE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE, YELAHANKA- 560064 4.V K. RAMA,, W/0 VCR CHETTY, AGE 63 YEARS SADANA, NO. 1014, 11TH MAIN, HAMPINAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA- 560040. RAMYA 5.V.C. REDDAPPA CHETTY,, S/0 V. VENKATARAMAIAH, AGE 75, HAMPINAGAR, RAMYA SADANA, NO. 1014, 11TH BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA- 560040. MAIN 6.OH. SRI RAMA REDDY,, S/0, LAXMI REDDY, AGE 55 YEARS, 2-15, MARASANAPALLI CHILAMATHUR MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. MARASALAVANDLAPALLI. PANCHAYAT, 7.A. ADI REDDY,, S/0, LATE A. MALLI REDDY, AGE 58 YEARS, MARASALAVANDLAPALLI. MARASANAPALLI PANCHAYAT, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 8.S. CHOWDI REDDY,, S/O, GOVINDA REDDY, AGE 50 YEARS. MAIN STREET, MADIREPALLI, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI 2 DISTRICT. 9.S. SRINIVASA REDDY,, S/0 S. G. GOVINDA REDDY, AGE YEARS, 8-31 MAIN STREET, MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 39 MADIREPALLI, CHILAMATHUR ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 3.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LB. DIVISION, PENUGONDA, SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 4.ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, I.B.SECTION, CHILAMATHUR SATYA SAI DISTRICT. SECRETARIAT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order direction particularly a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned Notice dated 18/02/2025 illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and fair play and against Articles 14,19 (1) (g), 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the foot bridge constructed by the petitioners, farmers and other villagers of Kodur Village by pooling funds to minimize the distance of 12 km to 300 meters and pass such lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent continue the existence of the foot bridge which is constructed by pooling funds by the petitioners, farmers and villagers of Kodur Village even though the Government did not construct the foot bridge for the benefit of the farmers and villagers of Kodur village pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased more as 3 pleased to vacate the interim orders dated: 12.03.2025 W.P.No.6318 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): passed in I 1.KARUPOLU NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV The Court made the following; •■'9T 4 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.6318 of 2025 ORDER; The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief;- to issue an appropriate writ, order direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4‘^respondent in issuing the impugned Notice dated 18/02/2025 as illegal, arbitrary,violative of principles of natural justice and fair play and against Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the foot bridge constructed by the petitioners farmers and other villagers of Kodur Village by pooling funds to minimize the distance of 12 km to 300 meters and to pass such other order or orders 2. The petitioners are the absolute owners of the agricultural land in survey No.661 of Koduru Village of Chilmathur Mandal in Satya Sai District. As the petitioners were supposed to travel 12 K.M. to cross the Chitravathi River during rainy season, they have submitted a representation to then Hon’ble Minister for Irrigation in the year 2013, requesting the Hon’ble Minister to sanction funds for the construction of a foot bridge over the Chitravathi River. In the rd year 2014-2015 also, the petitioners gave a representation to the 3 respondent, requesting for constructing bridge over Chitravathi River. As there was no response even to the 2^^ representation, the petitioners along with the farmers and villagers of Koduru Village have together pooled funds and constructed the foot bridge in the 5 year 2014-2015 by laying pipes on the bed of River in survey No.661 of Koduru Village without causing any obstruction to the water flowing in the Chitravathi River. The length of the foot bridge is only 30 to 35 meters. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the foot bridge is being used by the villagers and as well as by the farmers since more than 10 years, the 4'*^ respondent even without looking the factual position of the said village, have issued the impugned notice dated 18.02.2025, duly alleging that the petitioners have constructed the foot bridge on the Chitravathi River without obtaining any prior permission from the Irrigation Department and by illegally occupying and making cultivation on the either sides of the River which are yeti 3. poramboku lands and also directed the petitioners to vacate the illegally occupied yeti poramboku lands voluntarily within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the notice. Further it was observed that the bridge which was constructed on the top of the River shall also be demolished as it is causing obstruction to the flow of water in the River. 4. Challenging the said notice, the petitioners filed the present writ petition on the ground that the foot bridge has been constructed for the convenience of the villagers and the same is being used by the villagers for past ten (10) years and also that the respondents. without giving any show cause notice, violating the principle of 6 r natural justice, have straightaway issued the impugned notice directing the petitioners to voluntarily vacate the occupied yeti poramboku lands and also intimated the petitioners regarding the demolition of the foot bridge constructed on the top of the River stating that it is causing obstruction of the flow of water in the River, without even calling for an explanation from the petitioners. 5. When the writ petition came up for admission on 12.03.2025, this Court was pleased to pass the following the interim order: “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the notice dated 18.02.2025 issued by the 4 respondent. ’’ th 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation for the respondents. The 3^^ respondent filed counter stating that the petitioners have not submitted any representation as stated by them in their affidavit to the then Hon’ble Minister for Irrigation or to the 3 respondent, requesting to construct a bridge across the Chitravathi 7. rd River and it is further stated that the Irrigation Department is not responsible for constructing bridges to connect the Villages across the Rivers or natural streams. Such projects fall under the jurisdiction of Panchayat Raj and Roads & Buildings Department. The 7 petitioners would have approached the Panchayat Raj and Road & Buildings Department for construction of the bridge, if necessary. It further stated that the primary intention behind the construction of the said bridge with pipes appears to be to impound water and divert it to the petitioners’ artificially created farm ponds, exploiting the ground water through bore-wells, while the petitioners claims that the bridge serves a public purpose enabling the transport of manure and agricultural products. It has come to the notice of the respondents that the area surrounding the bridge has been fenced off, as if the said land belongs to the petitioners, restricting the access to other villagers and farmers. IS It is further stated that the hallow pipes installed by the petitioners are inadequate to handle the flood water discharge from the catchment area of 190 square miles with a Maximum Flood Discharge (MFD) of 11,568 cusecs. The pipes laid at the bridge have a discharge capacity of only 900 cusecs, obstructing the natural flow of flood water. This obstruction may lead to breaches in River banks, potentially flooding to nearby farm lands and villages and as such the respondents have issued a notice on 18.02.2025 to the petitioners directing the petitioners to remove the unauthorised bridge ensuring safe discharge of flood waters and to protect the lower riparian rights of the public. It is also stated that FIR No.17/2025 has been registered at Chilamathur Police Station on 8. 8 25.02.2025 by the 4**^ respondent for the unauthorized construction of the culvert (bridge) by the petitioners. rd 9. On perusal of the said counter affidavit filed by the 3 respondent, it can be observed that except stating that the petitioners have constructed the said bridge for his personal benefits, and have also raised fencing surrounding the bridge obstructing ingress and egress of the other villagers and farmers and the same is the cause of issuance of the said notice on 18.02.2025 which the petitioners have been using for the past ten (10) years, the respondents ought to have called for an explanation from the petitioners and then ought to have initiated any action of removal of the said bridge. In the present case, though the impugned proceedings dated 18.02.2025 are styled as notice and it straightaway directs the petitioners to remove the unauthorised bridge within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice, which in fact is in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. However, during the course of arguments the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation requests this Court to direct the petitioners to submit an explanation to the said impugned notice dated 18.02.2025 by treating it as a show cause notice. 11. In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioners to submit an explanation to the impugned notice ‘ \ a- ■■ ■ . \ nr - 9 ll: dated 18.02.2025 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and on receipt of the same, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to the impugned notice dated 18.02.2025. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be order as to costs. no As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Satya Sai District. 3. The Executive Engineer, I.B. DivisionTPenugonda, Satya Sai District. 4 The Asst Executive Engineer, I.B.Section, Chila^athur, Satya Sai District. 5. One CC to Sri Karupolu N^simha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Irrigation & Comm Area Dev, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:19/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 6318 OF 2025 Of Afio, 'O 1 15 SFP m 1 ^‘^£&PATCUiS.S^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS