IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27339 of 2010 Between: Konduru Lakshmi Narayana Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District, & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Srinivas Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Palle Nageswara Rao The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27339 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in taking steps on the petitioner’s representation dated 23.10.2010 for stopping dumping of material on both sides of the bank of Maruva Vanka and closing the same by certain persons at the instance of respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Palle Nageswara Rao for respondent No.4. The petitioner claims to have purchased extents of Ac.2.64 cents and Ac.1.32 cents in Sy.No.155/3 under a registered sale deed dated 18.09.2010 from a person by name T. Kullayamma. He has pleaded that there is a drain stream called Maruva Vanka, which runs in North- South direction on the one side of his plot. The grievance of the petitioner is that certain persons, who have nothing to do with the properties in question over which the drainage is located, are trying to close the same by dumping waste material. The petitioner made a representation on 23.10.2010 to respondent No.1 bringing the above said fact to his notice, but the said representation has not yielded any action. After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing counsel for respondent No.4, I am of the opinion that respondent No.1 and 4 shall take appropriate action, if the complaint of the petitioner contains an element of truth. Closing of a drainage channel causes serious hazards to the residents of the area in which such channel is in existence. It is therefore expedient for respondent Nos.1 and 4 to ensure that such drainage channel shall not be allowed to be meddled with by unauthorized persons. Accordingly, these two respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and take appropriate action in accordance with law expeditiously. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.34924 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.12.2010 ES