APHC010359922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19026/2025 Between: 1. GONCHIGARA SOMASEKHAR GARI SREEDHAR, S/O. SOMASEKHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. YARRAMPALLI VILLAGE, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL ANANTAPURAMDISTRICT. 2. GONCHIGARA SOMASEKHAR REDDY,, S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. YARRAMPALLI VILLAGE, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. GONCHIGARI RAJASEKHAR REDDY,, S/O. HANUMANTHAPA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. YARRAMPALLI VILLAGE, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. G.S. SRINATHA,, S/O. SOMASEKHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. YARRAMPALLI VILLAGE, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 5. G. AVINASH REDDY,, S/O. HANUMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. YARRAMPALLI VILLAGE, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 2 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (IRRIGATION), WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (IRRIGATION) ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT, ANANTAPUR. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, ANANTAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IB DIVISION, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BYRAVANI TIPPA PROJECT, DHARMAVARAM ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR PROJECT, BYRAVANI TIPPA PROJECT, GUMMAGATTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 7. THE TAHSILDAR, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 8. R SRINIVAS REDDY, S/O. LATE RUDRAPPAGARI BHEEMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. YARRAMPALLI VILLAGE, GUMMAGATTA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ...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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 to 7 in restoring the irrigation canal (sluice no. 16/C, Byravani Tippa Project) passing through the land in an extent of Ac. 1.08 Cents in Sy. No. 358/1, Bupasamudram Revenue village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapuram District, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional pass such IA 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 3 may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 7 to restore the irrigation canal (sluice no. 16/C, Byravani Tippa Project) passing through the land in an extent of Ac. 1.08 Cents in Sy. No. 358/1, Bupasamudram Revenue village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapuram District, forthwith, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV The Court made the following: 4 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.19026 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 to 7 in restoring the irrigation canal (sluice no. 16/C, Byravani Tippa Project) passing through the land in an extent of Ac. 1.08 Cents in Sy. No. 358/1, Bupasamudram Revenue village, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapuram District, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional pass such….” 2. The petitioners are having agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.355/B1, 355/B3, 355/B3, 332/B, 356/B1, 360/B, 360/A2, 344/B, 356/C1B and 355/A. The case of the petitioners is that the water resource to the above lands is from the canal under Byravani tippa irrigation project passing through Sy.No.358/1 in an extent of Acs.1.08 cents. The canal land and other lands were acquired and the canal was created to provide water to the agricultural lands the year 1965. 3. While the matter being so, in the month of November, 2024, the 8th respondent, highhandedly closed the canal and erected the fencing stone pillars. As such, the 5th petitioner has submitted a complaint to respondent Nos.2 to 7 in spandana on 25.11.2024 requesting to restore the canal, in response to which, the 6th respondent addressed a letter dated 26.11.2024 to the 7th respondent requesting to conduct survey and fix the boundaries to the said canal. In spite of 5 the said request, the 7th respondent has failed to conduct a survey and to fix boundaries, as such, the petitioner was constrained to file a representation dated 23.12.2024 to the 7th respondent requesting to conduct a survey and demarcate the canal. Aggrieved by the inaction of the 7th respondent in conducting a survey, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. Heard Sri. I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation. 5. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation furnished a letter addressed by the 4th respondent dated 11.08.2025, wherein it is stated that on 11.07.2025 the joint inspection has been conducted by the irrigation officials along with revenue authorities and the boundaries have been fixed by the mandal surveyor of Gummagatta mandal in Sy.No.358/1 to an extent of Acs.1.08 cents. It is further stated that the estimation for restoring the irrigation field canal is submitted to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and once the estimation gets sanctioned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the canal will be restored with an immediate effect. 6. As the respondents have already initiated process for restoring the said canal but, however, the same is awaiting for budget sanction from Government, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to restore the aforesaid canal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6 7. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 11.08.2025. Gss