APHC010498722022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30581/2022 Between: 1. VANGALA MURALI MOHAN REDDY, S/O RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HINDU, OCC.CULTIVATION, R/O H. NO. 4-1, MANCHALA KATTA VILLAGE, GADIVEMULA MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, A 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT.A.P. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION WORKS DIVISION, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE, NANDYAL KURNOOLDISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. ANDHRA PRADESH SOLAR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND CHAIRMAN, HAVING OFFICE AT VIDYUTH SOUDHA, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA-520004, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. 6. S SRIKANTH REDDY, S/O. S. PEDDA VENGALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, H.NO. 89-1167-2, REVENUE COLONY, GOWRI SHANKAR COMPLEX, CAMP-B, KALLUR, KURNOOL-518002. PARTNER IN M/S. SRI UMAMAHESWARA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AT D.NO. 8-116, NEAR COLLEGE PLAY GROUND, BANGANAPALLE VILLAGE AND MANDAL, 2 VS,J W.P.No.30581 of 2022 KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P. - 518124. ...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 to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not taking any action against the persons who have dug the Pocham Bavi Vagu channal near the edge of the Manchla Katta Cheruvu illegally without taking necessary permission from the 2nd and 4th Respondent by obstructing the free water flow to Manchallakatta pond which will affect the water resource to the Manchallakatta Village and Talamapudi Village even inspite of the repeated request made by the petitioner personally and through his representation dated 09.05.2022 and to restore the channel to its original position near the edge of the Manchalakatta pond as being illegal and arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to restore the channel to its original position by filling the digged area forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 Respondent No.4 to stop the digging work and to restore the Pocham Bavi Vagu channal near the edge of the Manchla Katta Cheruvu to its original position by filling the digged area forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV 4. C SUBODH The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.30581 of 2022 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “… to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not taking any action against the persons who have dug the Pocham Bavi Vagu channal near the edge of the Manchla Katta Cheruvu illegally without taking necessary permission from the 2nd and 4th Respondents by obstructing the free water flow to Manchallakatta pond which is affecting the water resource to the Manchallakatta Village and Talamapudi Village even in spite of the repeated request made by the petitioner personally and through his representation dated 09.05.2022 and to restore the channel to its original position near the edge of the Manchalakatta pond as being illegal and arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to restore the channel to its original position by filling the digged area forthwith ….” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner is a resident of Manchalakatta Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Nandyal District. The residents of the petitioner’s village and Talamudipi Village are getting water from Manchala Katta Pond since 40 years. b) It is the case of the petitioner that the said pond was constructed by acquiring land from the villagers by the Government in the year 1972. The water to the pond flows from different directions from the hilltop through 4 VS,J W.P.No.30581 of 2022 Pocham Bavi Vagu and through Maddileru Vagu and also through Konda Vagu and by lifting the water from Srisailam Right Branch Main Canal through motors. The Manchalakatta Cheruvu is nearly spread in Ac.3000.00 in Sy.Nos.6 to 11, 14 to 19, 23, 26, 27 to 32 and 184 and other survey numbers under cultivation of this Cheruvu are nearly about Ac.2200.00 as per records. The Government has constructed a solar power plant in certain parts of Gaddivemulla Mandal in Gani Village and Orvakal Mandal in Sekunala Village and the solar power plant is developed in the above-mentioned villages, for which these two villages have given their lands and as well as got funds for village development from the 5th respondent. c) While the matter being so, the petitioner came to know that the 6th respondent started digging the canal on the backside of the Manchalakatta Pond, which is one of the inflows of the water source to the pond. As a result of which, there is water scarcity to the petitioner’s village and Mandal. d) On an RTI application submitted by the petitioner to the 4th respondent on 16.05.202, the petitioner came to know that the 3rd and 5th respondents have not obtained any permission either from the 2nd respondent or from the 4th respondent, which is mandatory for doing any irrigation work. As such, the petitioner was constrained to file a representation dated 09.05.2022 to the 4th respondent requesting him to take action against the 3rd and 5th respondents. As no action has been initiated, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 5 VS,J W.P.No.30581 of 2022 3. When the matter came up for admission on 29.09.2022, this Court passed the following interim order: “….the 3rd respondent shall consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.05.2022 and pass orders within a period of two (2) weeks from th date of receipt of this order. 4. Respondents No.2 and 4 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the LAD Committee has accorded approval for the work “Formation of canal from Manchalakatta irrigation tank to Gani Village fields for Rs.300.00 lakhs vide Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool proceedings No.G1.2353/LAD/DySO(1)/2016, dated 17.12.2021” to be taken up with the LAD funds, as Gani is an affected village with the Ultra Mega Solar Park. The Manchalakatta Grama Sabha has also passed a resolution for taking up the above work, though Manchalakatta village is not an affected village. The Water Resources (Irrigation) Department is not a member in the LAD Committee and the work was sanctioned and taken up by the APSPCL without any notice to the Water Resources Department. When the agency started the work in the foreshore of Manchalakatta Tank, the villagers brought the issue to the notice of the Water Resources Department on 06.05.2022 and immediately the work was stopped as it was taken up without any intimation to the Water Resources Department and the APSPCL authorities were requested not to proceed further with the work. It is further stated that the 6 VS,J W.P.No.30581 of 2022 Pocham Bavi Vagu flows through the fields of Gani Village and drains into the Manchalakatta MI Tank. As part of the work, the vagu course is widened and deepened. As the vagu drains into the MI Tank itself, except for the stagnated water in the deepened and widened portion of the vagu, the rest will flow back to the tank. However, it is stated that the Water Resources Department is not responsible for taking up this work. Since the work “Formation of canal from Manchalakatta Irrigation Tank to Gani Village fields for Rs.300.00 lakhs vide Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool proceedings No.GI.2353/LAD/DySO(1)/2016, dated 17.12.2021” was taken up by the APSPCL with the LAD funds, the restoration work of Pocham Bavi Vagu channel, if ordered by this Court, has to be undertaken by the APSPCL only. 5. Respondent No.5 filed a counter duly stating that the Local Area Development Committee headed by the District Collector, Kurnool has approved the said work of “Formation of canal from Manchalakatta Irrigation Tank to Gani Village fields” and entrusted the work to the 5th respondent Corporation for its execution. It is further submitted that though the nomenclature is termed as formation of canal, the nature of the work is only deepening and widening of the existing canal from Manchalakatta Tank to Gani Village. It is also stated that the respondent Corporation has invited tenders in local newspaper and allotted the work to a lowest bidder i.e., the 6th respondent, who is the Managing Partner of the said agency for executing the notified work as per the specifications mentioned in the bid document. The work consists of removing the silt in the existing Pocham Bavi Vagu canal, 7 VS,J W.P.No.30581 of 2022 deepening the vagu canal bed level so as to maintain the tank water level in the vagu canal and clearing of vegetation therein so as to enable the villagers of Gani to lift the water to irrigate their barren lands. 6. Respondent No.6, who is none other than the contractor to whom the work has been allotted has also filed a formal counter. 7. After going through the counters, this Court on 04.03.2024. This Court, on 04.03.2024, ordered as follows: “…. After hearing the matter at length, this Court is inclined to direct the Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Works Division, Nandyal to submit a detailed report in respect of Manchallakatat Pond and digging of Pocham Bavi Vagu channel by the respondent No.5/Andhra Pradesh Solar Power Corporation Limited and also regarding effect of water source to the notified ayacut Acs.2067 of the Manchallakatta Village and Talamapudi Village, within a period of three weeks. i.e., on or before 26.03.2024.” 8. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.4 filed a detailed report, wherein it is stated that as part of the work, the vagu course is widened and deepened. As the vagu drains into the MI Tank itself, except for the stagnated water in the deepened and widened portion of the vagu, the rest will flow back to the tank and the deepening and widening of a vagu (stream) which drains into a tank shall not be treated as encroachment or destruction of water body. It is also stated that the Superintending Engineer/Civil, APSPCL, Tadepalli has 8 VS,J W.P.No.30581 of 2022 confirmed in their counter affidavit in this writ petition that the APSPCL has already provided two additional 100 HP pumps recently in APSIDC intake structure to pump additional water into Manchalakatta Tank from Srisailam Right Bank Canal (SRBC) to compensate water utilization by Gani Village through this work and also operated the pumps as per the water requirement of the farmers. Hence, there is no damage to the livelihood of persons living in Manchalakatta and Talamudipi villages on account of execution of these works. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously objected that as of today there is only one 100 HP pump but not two as stated in the report filed along with the memo. 10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Mr.Siva Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent No.5 confirmed that as on today there are two additional 100 HP pumps which are installed by APSPCL. 11. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that no further cause survives in this writ petition. If at all the petitioner has any dispute with regard to the installation of two 100 HP pumps, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation to the 5th respondent with regard to the same and the 5th respondent shall look into the complaint made by the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with the report submitted by the 4th respondent. 9 VS,J W.P.No.30581 of 2022 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 28.10.2025 KGR/CAB