IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17913 of 2008 Between: Nadella Rama Rao, S/o. Basavaiah, Hindu, R/o. 31-9-8/3, Bindu Apartment, Maganti Vari Street, Maruthi Nagar, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner Vijayawada. 2 The Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, Vijayawada. 3 The Executive Engineeer, Circle No.3, Municipal Corporation, Patamata, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the construction f drain work by the respodnents herein in the petitioners vacant house site in Survey No.381/2 Plot No.5 of Gundala, Vijayawada as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of all cannons of law and justice and consequently direct the respondents herein to follow the due process of law to carryout the drain work in the petitioners land and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.G.JHANSI The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 17913 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioner with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the construction of drain work by the respondents in the petitioner’s vacant house Plot NO.26 comprising Survey No. 381/2 of Gunadala Vijayawada as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of all cannons of law. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt. G. Jhansi learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents, on instructions, reports that existing channel has been strengthened and no new channel is laid in the plot owned by the petitioner. 3. The question is whether the existing channel is in the plot owned by the petitioner or in the neighbouring plots. If the existing channel is in the plot owned by the petitioner, he cannot found fault with the respondents in strengthening the existing channel. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to conduct inspection of the field with reference to Field Measurement Book in the presence of the petitioner and decide and demarcate as to whether the existing channel is passing through the plot owned by the petitioner as per Field Measurement Book and in case the existing channel is passing through plot of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. If it is otherwise, the respondents have to follow due process of law for acquiring the land, which has been consumed for laying drainage channel. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy, 26th August, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY RIT PETITION NO. 17913 OF 2008 26th August, 2008.