Gamidi Bhoopal Reddy vs State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 259 Tel

 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                        AND
       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                            W.A.No.548 of 2021

JUDGMENT:     (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


       This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed

in W.P.No.21725 of 2021 dt.09-09-2021.


        2.   Heard        Sri      T.Venkat           Raju       Goud,   learned

counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional

Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.

3. It has been contended by the appellants that

the appellants had filed the above said Writ Petition

challenging the action of the respondents in altering the

original route map of laying a canal by passing with

curve shape instead straight line and passing through

the land of appellants to an extent of Ac.1.32 gts in Sy.

Nos.66/E/1 and 67/A/1 situated at Chinna Thimmapur

village, Mulugu Manda, Siddipet District and also in Sy.

Nos.113, 123 situated at Lakshmakkapally village,

Mulugu Mandal, Siddipet District to an extent of Ac.2.58

gts., altogether to an extent of Ac.3.18 gts.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants had

contended that the learned Single Judge has closed the

Writ Petition based on the report dt.08-09-2021 2 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.548 of 2021

submitted by the Deputy Executive Engineer, wherein it

was stated that the original alignment of Sangareddy

Main Canal passing through the villages of

Chinnathimmapur and Lakshmakkapally is not altered

and the same is as submitted earlier on the land

acquisition proposals. Learned counsel had further

contended that the report submitted by the Deputy

Executive Engineer was not made available to the

appellants and the map drawings of laying of Sangareddy

main canal was also not furnished.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants had further

contended that though the learned Single Judge has

closed the Writ Petition with an observation that the

original plan of laying canal is not altered, but in reality,

the respondents are altering the alignment of Sangareddy

main canal and the respondents are altering the canal in

such a way that it is passed through the appellants' land

which is causing inconvenience to the appellants.

Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants contended

that appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal

directing the respondents not to alter the laying of canal's

alignment and also further direct the respondents to

furnish the report of 08-09-2021 submitted by the 3 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.548 of 2021

Deputy Executive Engineer and also the map of laying of

canal be furnished to the appellants.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the respondents had contended that there

is no alteration of the alignment and the respondents had

filed a report dt.08-09-2021 of the Deputy Executive

Engineer wherein it was specifically stated that the

original alignment of laying Sangareddy main canal

passed through the villages of Chinnathimmapur and

Lakshmakkapally is not altered and based upon the said

report, the learned Single Judge has rightly closed the

Writ Petition stating that the laying of Sangareddy main

canal alignment is not being altered and the learned

Additional Advocate General has further stated that the

report dt.08-09-2021 submitted by the Deputy Executive

Engineer along with the map will be furnished to the

appellants within a reasonable period of time.

7. This Court, having considered the rival

submissions by the parties, is of the considered view that

the respondents have categorically stated that they are

not altering the alignment of the Sangareddy main canal

and a report of the Deputy Executive Engineer

dt.08-09-2021 is also filed stating that the alignment of 4 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.548 of 2021

the original plan of laying Sangareddy main canal will not

be altered, and with that contention of the respondents,

this Court feels that the grievance of the petitioner is

being resolved. Accordingly, no further orders need to be

passed. However, the respondents are directed to furnish

copy of the report dt.08-09-2021 of the Deputy Executive

Engineer along with map of the laying of Sangareddy

main canal to the appellants within two weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With these observations, the Writ Appeal stands

disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 25.01.2022 kvr