APHC010015912018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 920/2018 Between: 1. K SAMBASHIVA RAO, S/O. BALA KOTAIAH, R/O. PEDAGARLAPADU VILLAGE, DACHEPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. PINNAM CHINNA VENKATESHWARLU, S/O, PULLAIAH. R/O. PEDAGARLAPADU VILLAGE, DACHEPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. PINNAM NARSAMMA,, W/O. PEDDA VENKATESHWARLU, R/O. PEDAGARLAPADU VILLAGE, DACHEPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT AT GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADES 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GURAZALA AT GURAZALA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. TAHASILDAR, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, DACHEPALLY, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT SURVEY AND LAND 2 VS,J W.P.No.920 of 2018 RECORDS, GUNTUR DISTRICT AT GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SURVEY, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER'S OFFICE AT GURAZALA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NAGARJUNA SAGAR JAWAHAR CANNEL, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, SUB-DIVISION, PIDUGGURALLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 8. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NAGARJUNA SAGAR JAWAHAR CANNEL, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, SUB- DIVISION, PIDUGGURALLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 9. THE CHETTINAD CEMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, PEDAGARLAPADU AND KESANUPALLI VILLAGES, DACHEPALLI MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRIDT,ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...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 toto issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 herein in not taking action against the 9th respondent in blocking the channels of Nagarjuna Sagar Jawahar Cannel (NSJC) which obstructs the cultivation of the lands of the petitioners/riparian's in Survey numbers 119/B, 107,168, 116, 119/B, 166, 174/1A, 176 situated at Pedagarlapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh under the guise of the 9th respondent herein and in spite of reports of the respondents no. 5 and 8 as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to Article 300-A of Constitution of India as well as oppose to all cannons of justice, Consequentially direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to let loose the cannels blocked by the 9th respondent herein as per the letter in Letter No. C-A/1 Dated 20.04.2017 of the 8th respondent as well as the letter of the 5th respondent in Lr No. A5/510/2017 Dated 409.2017 for cultivation of the lands of the petitioners/riparians in Survey numbers 119/B, 107,168, 116, 119/B, 166, 174/1A, 176 situated at Pedagarlapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh forthwith and to pass 3 VS,J W.P.No.920 of 2018 IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 respondents 2 to 4 herein to let loose the canneis blocked by the 9th respondent herein as per the letter in Letter No. C-A/1 Dated 20.04.2017 of the 8th respondent as well as the letter of the 5th respondent in Lr No. A5/510/2017 Dated 22.9.2017 for cultivation of the lands of the petitioners/riparian's in Survey numbers 119/B, 107,168, 116, 119/B, 166, 174/1A, 176 situated at Pedagarlapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh forthwith pending disposal of the above vvrit petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. B CHANDRASEN REDDY 3. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.No.920 of 2018 ORDER: Mr.P.Saishidhar Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that no further orders are necessary in this matter and that the matter has become infructuous. 2. Recording the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:01.09.2025 KGR