1 APHC010011102024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 778/2024 Between: 1. TAMBISETTY ANANTAMMA, W/O. HARINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-40, BALAPANUR VILLAGE, SIMHADRIPURAM MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, I AND CAD (WATER RESOURCES) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR DISTRICT AT KADAPA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, KADAPA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PULIVENDULA BRANCH CANAL DIVISION, NEAR NAC BUILDING, PULIVENDULA, YSR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, SIMHADRIPURAM MANDAL, YSR 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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondents 3 to 5 in trying to excavate feeding canal from IR minor of Balapanur distributory to feed Nagarikunta Tank near Balapanur Village of Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR District, through the agricultural field on northern side of the lands belonging to the petitioner admeasuring Acs. 4.00 cents in Survey No. 945-P18 of 2 Balapanur Village, Simadripuram Mandal, YSR District, being bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and offends Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the Respondents 2 to 5 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the said land without following due process of Law and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 5 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of land to an extent of Acs. 4.00 cents in Survey No. 945 of Balapanur Village, Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 vacate the interim order passed in WP no. 778 of 2024 dated 31-01-2024 and dismiss the writ petition in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V N NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 3. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following order: Questioning the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s possession with regard to subject property (admeasuring Ac.4.00cents in Sy.No.945-P18 of Balapanur Village, Simhadripuram Mandal, 3 YSR District) for excavating the land for the purpose of laying canal without following due process of law, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Smt V.Hima Bindhu, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation. 3. Sri Satish, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that, at Para No.5 of counter of the Executive Engineer, PBC division, Pulivendula has stated that, the Department has not started execution of any work in the petitioner’s land, since the Land Acquisition is under process and it is only the apprehension of the petitioner that the execution of canal is being carried out without following due land acquisition process. He further submitted that, if at all the authorities have to take steps against the petitioner’s subject property, they would follow due process of law. As such prayed to close the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested to close the writ petition by recording the said submissions. 5. As the authorities have categorically stated in the counter that the Department has not started execution of any work in the petitioner’s land and that the authorities would follow due process of law before taking steps against the petitioner’s subject property, there remains nothing for adjudication and the writ petition is liable to be closed. 4 Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J BRS