CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 11 AP CK 0044

Thalagada Deevi Ramprasad vs The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and Others

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 14 November 2011 · Citation: (2012) 2 EFLT 565

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ghulam Mohammed, Acting C.J. · Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Appeal No. 93 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 343 words

Hon''ble Sri Ghulam Mohammed, Acting Chief Justice

1.

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 28.12.2010 dismissing the vacate petition WV MP No. 2321 of 2009 filed for vacating the interim order dated 28.5.2009 granted in WP MP No. 13503 of 2009 in W.P. No. 10516 of 2009.

2.

The fifth respondent herein filed the above writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 herein in taking any action against the appellant herein as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to preserve the water tank known as Pillalakodu Cheruvu in Sy.Nos. 234-18, 238-2 and 238-3, Chodavaram village, Nagayalanka Mandal, Krishna District. Along with the writ petition, he also filed WP MP No. 13503 of 2009 seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to stop the appellant herein from filling the said tank.

3.

The learned Single Judge by order dated 28.5.2009, granted interim direction. Seeking to vacate the same, the appellant herein filed WVMP No. 2321 of 2009, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned, observing that the land which was classified as drainage channel and tank bund, had been converted for the purpose of granting assignment in favour of the appellant and inasmuch as public interest more than the personal interest is involved, dismissing the vacate petition.

4.

A bare perusal of the order impugned makes it clear that it is evident from the records that tank bund and drainage channel were converted for the purpose of assignment in favour of the appellant. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the question whether the conversion, which has the effect of causing disappearance of water bodies is permissible for the maintenance of ecological and environmental equilibrium, requires to be adjudged in the writ petition. We do not see any infirmity in the order impugned.

5.

Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.