Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 41174 (AP)

Nekkala Satyanarayana v. The State Andhra Pradesh

WP/13814/2022 · 2025-11-17

V Sujatha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010239232022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 13814/2022 Between: 1. NEKKALA SATYANARAYANA, S/O'NAGULU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, PITAPURAM MANDAL, E.G.DIST., 2. SAKHINALA VEERABHADRA RAO, S/O. PEDDA KAPU @ APPALA SWAMY, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O. KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, PITAPURAM MANDAL, E.G.DIST., 3. NAMA SATHIBABU, S/O LATE VEEREFSWAMY, AGED 56 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-44, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, PITAPURARN MANDAL, E.G.DIST., 4. MUTHA JOGARAO, S/O.LATE LAKSHMANA, AGE 39 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-178, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, PITAPURAM MANDAL, E.G.DIST., 5. GANTHAGOLU VENKATA RAMANA, S/O LATE VEERAJU, AGED 56, R/O KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, PITAPURAM MANDAL, E.G.DIST., 6. GEDELA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O LATE MAHALAKSHMI, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-59, R/O KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, PITAPURAM MANDAL, E.G.DIST., 7. VAMISETTY SATHIBABU, S/O VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 2 49 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-142, R/O. KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, PITAPURAM MANDAL, 8. JALLIGAMPALA SATYA SRI RAMA ANJANEYULU, S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1- 199, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, PITAPURAM MANDAL, E.G.DIST., ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, Y I DIVISION, PEDDAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, Y I SUB-DIVISION SAMARALAKOTA EAST GODAVARI DISTICT 5. THE THAHSILDHAR, PITHAPURAM MANDAL EAST GODAVARI. 6. THE SHO, PITAPURAM RURAL POLICE STATION, PITAPURAM EG.DISTRICT 7. SRI TATIPUDI SUBBARAO, S/O.NAGANNA, AGE NOT KNOWN R/O B.KOTHURU VILLAGE,. PITAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GOADAVARI 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 toto issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly 3rd respondent in permitting 3 to excavate and transportation of silt from Thammayya tank, kumarapuram village, Pitapuram mandal, E.G.District., vide proceedings no.EE/Y.I.Div/PDP/C.B/SUPDT/MC.1/454 dated 28- 04-2022 of the 3rd respondent in favour of the 7th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of natural justice, consequently to suspend the proceedings no.EE/Y.I.Div/PDP/C.B/SUPDT/MC.1/454 dated 28-04-2022, by directing the respondents not to permit any excavation in Thammayya tank, kumarapuram village, Pitapuram mandal, E.G.District, and to 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 pleased to suspending the proceedings no.EE/Y.I.Div/PDP/C.B/SUPDT/MC.1/454 dated 28- 04-2022, by directing the respondents not to permit any excavation in Thammayya tank, kumarapuram village Pitapuram mandal, E.G.District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. THOKALA DEVENDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV 3. K B RAMANNA DORA The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: When the matter was listed on 29.10.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. As such, the matter was posted to 11.11.2025. Even on 11.11.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. As such, the matter was directed to be posted on 18.11.2025, under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. It seems that the petitioners are not evincing any interest in the present case. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any in the writ petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 18.11.2025. GSS