Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15997

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J
Magineni Shanmukha Vinay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 19674/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K V Aditya Chowdary
For the Respondents: GP For Revenue, GP For Irrigation Comm Area Dev

Unauthorized construction over waterways violating conditional permission warrants strict action; courts can issue comprehensive directions to ensure preservation of water bodies and prevent flooding.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Challenge to notice for removal of bridge on water channel - Petitioners had obtained conditional permission from Irrigation Department for construction of bridge over Ralla Kodu Channel - Violation of conditions by constructing 62 feet 11 inch concrete slab - Court found deliberate concealment and fraudulent violation by petitioners - Directions issued to all departments for preservation of waterways. (Paras 2-6)

(B) Constitutional Position - Flood Management - Primary responsibility lies with States under Entry 17, List II (State List) of Constitution - However, subject to Entry 56, List I (Union List) regarding regulation of inter-State rivers - NITI Aayog Report (2021-26) highlighted unplanned construction and encroachment on riverbeds as major reasons for floods. (Paras 9-14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to quash a notice dated 04.09.2024 issued by the Tahsildar directing removal of a bridge constructed by them on Ralla Kodu Channel. The father of petitioner no.1 had obtained conditional permission from the Irrigation Department in 2015 for construction of a bridge for ingress/egress to their house. The conditions required maintaining the width and depth of the canal and that construction be under supervision of the Executive Engineer. The petitioners, however, constructed a concrete slab covering the entire stretch (approx. 63 feet) along the length of their compound, violating the conditions. The Tahsildar's report revealed the petitioners had alternate access on the western side but had blocked it by erecting a garage.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners had fraudulently violated the conditions of permission and that both Revenue and Irrigation officials had turned a blind eye to the violation. The court issued comprehensive directions to all departments to preserve waterways and watercourses, ensure no construction impedes water flow, conduct periodical inspections every six months, and clear violations within 15 days. The Principal Secretary, Irrigation and Revenue were directed to submit the order to the Chief Secretary for communication to all concerned departments.

Issues: Whether the petitioners' construction violated the conditional permission granted for the bridge; what directions need to be issued to prevent encroachments on waterways.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that violations on waterways cause damage to flora and fauna and pose risks to human habitation. The existing law lacks deterrent effect, necessitating strict compliance with conditions and periodical monitoring. The court emphasized the need for legislative measures to address violations and official negligence. The court directed all departments to maintain waterways as per official records and prevent any construction that impedes water flow. Result : Writ petition disposed of with directions.

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri K.V.Aditya Chowdary, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners; Sri Srinivas Pathuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the Official Respondents.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“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 Respondent No.4 in issuing Notice R.B.216/2024, dated 04.09.2024 to petitioners for removal of Bridge (ingress and egress to Petitioners’ House) on Ralla Kodu Channel at KM 2.000, situated at D.No. 4-411, Dangudem Road, Chinna Cheruvu Gattu, Kaikaluru, Eluru District is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Constitution of India and set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

Shorn of unnecessary facts:

3. It is the submission of Sri K.V.Aditya Chowdary, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that for gaining ingress and egress to the house of the Writ Petitioners, father of the Writ Petitioner No.1 has made an Application to the Deputy Executive Engineer dated 20.05.2015 (Ex.P.2) for construction of a bridge with retaining walls on both sides of the Ralla Kodu Channel; that vide Proceedings dated 10.06.2015 (Ex.P4), the Respondent No.5 has granted permission with several conditions, inter-alia, that the said construction work shall be undertaken under supervision of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation

Department and by maintaining the same width and depth of the actual canal with concrete bed of five (5) mts., and stone revetment etc.; that about seven (7) conditions have been prescribed; that owing to flood situation, the Tahsildar, Kaikaluru, Eluru District had issued Notice dated 04.09.2024 (Ex.P.1) directing the Writ Petitioners to remove the bridge constructed by them on Ralla Kodu Canal; this Notice issued by the Tahsildar dated 04.09.2024 is under challenge. The Writ Petitioners have filed Photographs from page Nos. 40 to 46 of the paper book which indicates the width of the Canal only, but no photograph had been filed by the Writ Petitioners showing the actual construction/improvement made by them.

4. This Court vide Order dated 06.09.2024 had directed the Tahsildar as well as the Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation (Sub-Division), Kaikaluru (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively) to submit a Report to this Court by 10.09.2024, whether the Writ Petitioners have violated the terms and conditions in terms of the permission granted on 10.06.2015 (Ex.P4). On 10.09.2024, this Court has noticed that the Written Instructions furnished by the Tahsildar does not have the date of issuance of the Written Instructions and on perusal of the Written Instructions, it transpired that the same does not address any of the directions given by this Court on 06.09.2024. Therefore, vide Order dated 10.09.2024, the Tahsildar was directed to appear before the Court on 20.09.2024.

5. The Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) as well as the Deputy Executive Engineer for Irrigation (Respondent No.5) have submitted their Reports. The Report of the Tahsildar dated 18.09.2024 indicates that the Writ Petitioners have constructed concrete slabs to a length of 62 feet and 11 Inches (i.e., almost 63 feet), thereby covering the entire stretch of the Canal all along the length of the compound of the Writ Petitioners. It was noticed by the Court that the Writ Petitioners have clearly violated the conditional permission dated 10.06.2015 (Ex.P4) by laying concrete slabs to a length of about 62 feet 11

inches. This would indicate that the 62 feet 11 inches concrete slab had been laid by the Writ Petitioners without informing the Executive Engineer as laid down in the conditions. Taking this aspect into account, this Court has passed the follow

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15997

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHGannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, JMagineni Shanmukha Vinay Kumar – AppellantVersusThe State Of Andhra Pradesh – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO: 19674/2024

Unauthorized construction over waterways violating conditional permission warrants strict action; courts can issue comprehensive directions to ensure preservation of water bodies and prevent flooding.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J
Magineni Shanmukha Vinay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 19674/2024