IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1228 of 2008 Between: Kovuru Uma Maheshwara Rao S/o. Kovuru Ramakrishnayya R/o.Abbirajupalem Yellamanchili Mandal West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Engineer, P.R.B.(Lower) Section, Irrigation & Command Area Development, Narasapuram, East Godavari District 2 The Deputy Exective Engineer, Irrigation & Command Area Development, Vasista sub divison, Dowleshwaram, East Godavari District 3 The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation & Command Area Development Vasista Sub Divison, Dowleshwaram, East Godavari District 4 The District Collector,West Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, this writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare proceedings, dated 29.12.2007 issued by respondent No.1 whereby he directed the petitioner to remove coconut trees planted, developed and cultivated on the Vasista right bund KM Nos.56.400 to 57.200 under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Rivers Conservancy Act, 1884 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary. The father of the petitioner was granted permission vide proceedings, dated 16.06.1962 by respondent No.3 for raising coconut plants on the toes of Vasista right bank from M.35/4 to 35/6 subject to the conditions such as payment of tree tax etc. Following the same, a lease deed was executed. The petitioner claims that in pursuance of the said permission and the lease deed, the petitioner’s father raised coconut plants and had been enjoying the usufruct during his life time and after his death, the petitioner has been maintaining the coconut plants and enjoying the usufruct. By proceedings, dated 29.12.2007 respondent No.1 issued a notice in the name of the father of the petitioner to remove the coconut plants on the above-mentioned bund. This proceeding is questioned by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no prior notice was given by respondent No.1 before issuing impugned proceedings and hence, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice apart from being arbitrary. He also submitted that respondent No.1 failed to obtain permission from the District Collector before issuing the impugned proceedings. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation invited my attention to the contents of the counter affidavit, in which clause 9 of the lease agreement is extracted, which reads as under: “Clause 9:- If in the opinion of the Superintending Engineer, Dowleswaram circle for the time being hereinafter referred to as the Superintending Engineer it is desirable that all or any of the said trees shall at any time or times here after by cut down such trees may after the expiry of one week from the service, the licensee of notice of the intention to remove same be cut down and removed according to the directions of the Executive Engineer, and the licensee shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of the removal of all or any of such trees.” In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted that the Government sanctioned around 13.25 crores for raising and widening of flood bank from KM 55.00 to 68.00 of Vasista Right Bank including formation of Water Bound Mecadam (WBM) Road and remodeling/reconstructing the existing structures; that in pursuance of the same, tenders were called for and after processing, respondent No.3 entered into an agreement, dated 28.06.2007 with M/s.Ramky Infrastructure Limited; that respondent No.3 and the Executive Engineer felt that it is desirable to remove the trees including the trees planted by the father of the petitioner and that in pursuance of the instructions issued by respondent No.3 and the Executive Engineer, respondent No.1 gave impugned notice for removal of the trees. In paragraph 7 of the counter, the respondents relied on Condition No.11 of the Agreement, under which, the petitioner has a right to seek reference of disputes for arbitration. It is further alleged that the enquiries of the respondents revealed that the father of the petitioner sold away the license rights to one Sri S.Venkata Rayudu, Son of Venkata Ratnam of Abbirajupalem Village through a registered document, dated 09.11.1971 and concealing the same, the petitioner himself is paying tree tax. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner was conferred with limited rights of planting coconut trees and enjoying the usufruct. Under Clause 9 of the lease agreement, which was reproduced above, the respondents have unqualified right to call upon the licensee to cut down the trees by service of a week’s notice. The petitioner does not dispute that the reason contained in the impugned notice, namely, widening of the river bund is incorrect or fabricated. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned notice cannot be termed either as arbitrary or illegal. The respondents have invoked the power conferred on them under the agreement for an important purpose, namely, widening and strengthening of a river bund. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation. If such a right inheres in the petitioner, he shall be entitled to claim compensation before the appropriate authority and nonpayment of compensation cannot be a ground to stall widening of the bund. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to claim compensation in accordance with law in respect of the coconut trees planted by the petitioner’s father/petitioner and presently existing on the bund. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.1468 of 2008 and WVMP.No.654 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th APRIL, 2008 kvni