IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.304 OF 2010 DATED:19.10.2010 Between: Mr. Korrapati Vivekananda and another … Appellants And Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad Hyderabad, and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.304 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) Stagnation of storm water having necessitated steps for its drainage, consequently initiation of acquisition proceedings vide notification dated 17.6.2008 which culminated in final award on 15.9.2009 which was challenged through the writ petition. The learned single Judge having found that the writ petition questioning invocation of urgency clause by the respondents was filed after more than one year and that too after participating in the acquisition proceedings, dismissed the same, hence this appeal. The main plank of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the construction of drain is likely to cause damage to their house. We have examined the award as also the pleadings of the parties, a perusal whereof reveals that the respondents have contemplated laying of storm water pipe line involving 60 square yards out of which 30 square yards belong to the appellants comprising No.23-89/2, situated at Krishnaveni Nagar, Gaddiannaram Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. We have noticed that the pipeline sought to be laid is of 2 feet diameter and 1 meter below the ground level at the edge of the compound wall of the premises of the appellants which according to the opinion of the experts is not going to cause any damage to the appellants’ house. The learned Counsel for the appellants also urged that a 6 inches diameter sewerage pipeline is already in existence which can take care of storm water but as per the opinion of the experts its use for storm water is absolutely impossible because the requirement for storm water’s drainage is a pipeline of 2 feet, obviously 6 inches pipeline cannot be the alternative. In the aforementioned backdrop, interference is declined. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 19-10-2010 B. Narsinga Rao