IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY ( TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 245 OF 2010 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 22-3-2010 in W.P.No.6389 of 2010 on the file of the High Court. Between: The Water Users Association, Korisapadu, Prakasam District President, Leela Subba Reddy, aged about 50 Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. O X ^3^ Rep. by its years, R/o. Korisapadu ...APPELLANT/4‘^ RESPONDENT AND 1. The Korisapadu Gram Panchayat, Korisapadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Sri K. Subbarao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Age 50 years, R/o. Korisapadu Village, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER 2. The Govt, of A.P. Rep by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4. The Station House Officer, Korisapadu Police Station, Korisapadu, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS/2 to 3 RESPONDENTS LA. NO: 2 OF 2010rWAMP, NO: 567 OF 7nin| Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated m the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be J made in WP No. 6389 of Hon'ble Court. pleased to suspend the order dated 22-3-2010 2010, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal before this X Counsel for the Appellant: SRI N. SUBBA RAO .^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI M. PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: JUDGMENT •i /■ ^ # : *y •V % I .^^.^0.245 0/2010 1 APHC010153702010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 245/2010 Between: The Water Users Association, Korisapadu, Prakasam District ...APPELLANT AND The Korisapadu Gram Panchayat Prakasam Dist. & 3 others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.N SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.G ELISHA 2.M PRABHAKAR RAO 3.GP FOR HOME CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 27.01.2025 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Assailing the orders dated 22.03.2010 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.6389 of 2010, the respondent no.4 in the said writ petition preferred with Writ Appeal. 1 %\./Ji.U^o.245of2010 2. For convenience, the parties, hereinafter, will be referred to with their status in this Writ Appeal. 3. The respondent no.l-Korisapadu Gram Panchayat, rep. by its Secretary filed the said writ petition questioning the inaction of respondent .4- Station House Officer, Korisapadu Police Station, in assisting the Gram Panchayat in discharging its public duty, being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 139 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the ActO no 4. Through the impugned orders, the writ petition filed by respondent no.l was disposed of, with a direction to respondent no.4 to consider the representation of respondent no.l and carry out its duty under Section 139 of the Act. 5. The facts that led to filing of the writ petition, in brief, are that pursuant to the agreement entered into in the year 1988 between Social Forest Department and respondent no. 1-Gram Panchayat on the condition that usufruct of the trees shall be shared between them, the Gram Panchayat raised trees with its own expenses and thereafter, on the directions of Divisional Forest Officer, the Gram Panchayat had conducted auction of the trees. The said auction was questioned by appellant Water Users Association by filing a writ petition vide W.P.No.4311 of 2008 claiming that they have a .WJ4.^''o.245 of2010 3 right over the tank and the trees existed on the tank bund. The said writ petition was dismissed by this court on 03.03.2010 holding that Water Users Association has no claim over the trees raised over the tank. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat directed the auction purchaser/contractor to execute the work of felling the trees and removing them therefrom. When the appellant obstructed the contractor, the respondent no. 1 lodged a complaint with respondent no.4-Station House Officer, to assist the contractor for executing the work. However, though bound to assist the local body in discharging its public duties as per Section 139 of the Act, the respondent no.4 did not provide any protection. Consequently, the respondent no.l filed writ petition. 6. The learned single Judge, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent no.4 to consider the representation of respondent no.l and carry out its duty under section 139 of the Act, taking due note of the observations made while dismissing the writ petition vide W.P.No.4311 of 2008 that the appellant has no right to claim compensation over the trees and further considering Section 139 of the Act, which says that every police officer shall be bound to assist the Gram Panchayat, situated in their jurisdiction, in exercise of their lawful authority. .WA.U^O.245 of2010 4 7. Assailing the same, the respondent no.4 in the writ petition preferred with writ appeal contending that respondent no.l filed the writ petition suppressing the factum of filing of writ appeal by the appellant assailing the orders passed in W.P.No.4311 of 2008. It is further contended that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate the provisions of the A.P.Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997, which envisages that appellant alone is competent to utilize the tank. It is further contended that the learned single Judge without ascertaining as to whether the orders in W.P.No.4311 of 2008 attained finality or not and even without affording an opportunity to appellant to contest the matter, ignoring the factum of pendency of writ appeal preferred against the orders passed in W.P.No.4311 of 2008, disposed of the writ petition. Therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 8. Heard Sri A.Sai Bhargava, learned counsel, representing Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned Government Pleader for Home. 9. It is relevant here to note that the appellant filed writ petition vide W.P.No.4311 of 2008 seeking to set aside the action of respondent no.l Gram Panchayat in conducting auction of existing babul trees, being illegal, without authority and jurisdiction. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court yfCM^RCJ U.^Ji.JVo.245of2010 5 holding that having regard to the admitted fact that the trees were planted by the Forest Department and were grown and maintained by the Gram Panchayat in terms of a statutory scheme, the rights acquired by Gram Panchayat under the terms of the agreement entered with the Forest Department are saved by Section 47 of the Act and hence, the claim made by the appellant to receive the sale proceeds of the said trees is untenable. 10. 10. Through the orders impugned in this writ appeal, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by Gram Panchayat questioning inaction of the Station Flouse Officer in not assisting the Gram Panchayat in causing the trees removed and transported by the contractor, holding that in view of the categorical finding given in W.P.No.4311 of 2008 that the water users Association, Korisapadu (appellant herein) has no right to claim compensation over the trees in question, the concerned police authorities shall carry out duty under section 139 of the Act. 11. In view of the above, in view of the clear finding given by this Court in W.P.No.4311 of 2008 that the Water Users Association has no right to claim compensation over the trees; until the appellant succeeds in getting the said orders annulled, it cannot assail the impugned orders through which the police authorities are only directed to assist the panchayat in exercising its a" y{'cM‘RCJ .W^.9^o.24S of2010 6 lawful authority as obligated under Section 139 of the Act in pursuance of the orders passed inW.P.No.4311 of 2008. 12. The grounds of appeal are to the effect that the impugned orders were passed on 22.03.2010 by which time the limitation for filing appeal against the orders passed in W.P.No.4311 of 2008 had not yet expired, however the learned single Judge without properly appreciating as to whether the said orders had attained finality or not, passed the impugned orders. It is the specific contention of the appellant that the orders passed in W.P.No.4311 of 2008 were assailed by filing appeal vide W.A.No.227 of 2010. Therefore, the impugned orders passed making the orders passed in W.P.No.4311 of 2008 as basis are liable to be set aside. 13. The case status of W.A.No.227 of 2010 said to have been preferred against the orders passed in W.P.No.4311 of 2008 shows that the said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.11.2024. Therefore, the orders. wherein it was held that the appellant is not entitled to claim a share in the sale proceeds of the trees raised on tank bed, remained unchallenged. Therefore, this writ appeal preferred assailing the impugned orders, which are ancillary to the orders passed in W.P.No.4311 of 2008, must fail. 14. The writ appeal being meritless deserves dismissal. '.WJil.mo.245 of2010 1 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SESTTDN OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri N. Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G. Elisha, Advocate[OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:27/01/2025 I 2 6 MAR 2025 S ^ . Current Section ^£°gSP»TCW^Sr^ JUDGMENT WA.No.245 of 2010 DISMISSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS