IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25394 of 2001 Between: Smt. Vullikirana Kumari, W/o. Prabhakara Rao, R/o. Aanasapuvari Street, D.No.10-4-19, Vizianagaram. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Vizianagaram District. 2 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Vizianagaram, vizianagaram District. 3 The Mandal Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Vizianagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. .....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 order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent authorities in laying of road on the water channel of Rangayya Cheruvvu, passing through the Peittioner's land and other ayacutdhars through S/No.117/7- 120/2, of Dwarapudi Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District is arbitrary, illegal, null and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.25394 2001 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents in laying a road on the water channel of Rangayya Cheruvu, passing through the lands of the petitioner and other ayacutdhars situated in Sy.Nos.117-7 –120-2 of Dwarapudi Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District was arbitrary and illegal. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondents in order to implement a scheme by name “Paniki Aahara Padhakam” wanted to convert the channel into road by closing the water channel. It is contended that the conversion of water channel as road is impermissible under law and the impugned action of the respondents at the instance of the influential local politicians for personal gain is arbitrary and illegal. This Court while directing rule nisi by order dated.13.12.2001 granted interim stay of laying the road in question. Despite notice, no counter-affidavit is filed by any of the respondents and the said interim order continued to be in operation all through. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development. Having regard to the specific plea of the petitioner that the respondents are attempting to construct a road on the irrigation water channel illegally, which remained un-contradicted in the absence of a counter-affidavit, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to obstruct the water channel in question either by constructing a road or in any other manner without following due process of law. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 24TH November,2008 *TSNR