Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J
Balusa Rama Chandra rao – Appellant
Versus
The Govt of A.P. – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 27855/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T V V Koteswara Rao
For the Respondents: GP For Revenue, GP For Panchayat Raj Rural Dev, N Srihari
Administrative inaction on a grievance is arbitrary, but where a significant time lapse has occurred, the petitioner may be required to file a fresh representation to ensure the current situation is considered by the authorities.
Headnote:The petitioners, who are agriculturists, challenged the construction of a drain canal in a layout and its connection to two irrigation canals, alleging that such action would pollute the water source used for paddy cultivation across approximately 300 acres of land. The petitioners had previously filed a complaint through the Spandana portal in 2022, but no action was taken by the authorities. The court examined whether the inaction of the authorities on the 2022 complaint was permissible. It was observed that the failure to pass orders on the complaint was arbitrary; however, given the lapse of three years, the court reasoned that the petitioners should submit a fresh application to address the current status of the grievance. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grievance regarding the pollution of irrigation canals due to the construction of a drain canal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. administrative failure to respond to complaints is arbitrary, but time-lapse may necessitate fresh applications. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation for consideration by authorities. (Para 7) |
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
The Court made the following order:
The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are laying drain canal in a layout in an extent of Ac.3.39 cents in R.S.No.219 and connecting the drain canal into two irrigation canals situated in R.S.No.220 & 217 in Peyyeru village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Eluru District.
2. Heard Sri T.V.V.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat and Sri Chandrasekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that, the petitioners are the agriculturists and there are two irrigation canals to the petitioners’ lands in R.S.No.220 & 217 providing pure water into the petitioners lands for growing paddy and the said two irrigation canals are source of water to Ac.300.00 cents in Peyyuru village. He further submitted that the respondents are trying to construct the Drain Canal and connecting to irrigation canals, which will pollute the water thereby causing loss to the crops and agricultural lands. He further submitted that, inspite of making a complaint in that regard in Spandana dated 29.08.2022 to the District collector, Eluru, no action has been initiated so far and though the issue of the year 2022, no counter was filed till date by the respondents. He further submitted that it would suffice if a direction is given to the respondents to look into the grievance raised by the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed the counter across the bench and submitted that the 9th respondent- tahsildar has only issued house site pattas to the beneficiaries in the R.S.No.219 to an extent of Ac.3.39 cents of Peyyuru village in the year 2007 and further amenities have to be provided by the Gram Panchayat, Peyyuru. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.
5. Perused the record and considered the submission of both the learned counsel.
6. Admittedly, the compliant made in the Spandana with regard to construction of Drain Canal and connecting to irrigation canals, is of the year 2022 and the authorities have not passed any orders on the same which is arbitrary. However, after lapse of three years, passing orders on the said complaint does not arise and the petitioners have to make a fresh application in that regard.
7. In view of said circumstances, without going into merits of the case, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:
(a) If the petitioners still feels that cause survives, they are at liberty to make a fresh application/representation to all the concerned departments in accordance with law.
(b) On receipt of the same, the concerned authorities are directed to consider and pass orders on the same in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
