IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.10361 OF 2009 MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Between: L. Suvarna and two others. .... Petitioners And: The Revenue Divisional Officer (LA) Siddipet, Medak District and 2 others ....Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.10361 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri G. Arun Kumar, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation. W.V.M.P No.2198 of 2009 is filed to vacate the interim order made in W.P.M.P.No.13324 of 2009 in W.P.No.10361 of 2009 dated 21.5.2009. When the matter is coming up for hearing at the interlocutory stage, a request is made for disposal of the writ petition itself and hence the writ petition is being disposed of finally. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in diverting the channel from eastern side of the petitioners land in Survey No.1639 admeasuring Ac.0.27 guntas situated at Linga Reddy Pally village, H/o. Siddipet, G.P. Prasanthinagar, Medak District, without issuing notice under Section 9(3) of Land Acquisition Act, as illegal, arbitrary and pass such suitable orders. It is stated that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of agricultural land in Survey No.1639 admeasuring 0.27 guntas situated at Lingareddy palli, Hamlet of Siddipet, Gram Panchayat, Prasanthinagar, Medak District. They had purchased the said property through registered sale deed document No.2685 of 2000 dated 27.7.2000. Since then onwards, the petitioners are the lawful owners and possessors of the said property. It is stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Siddipet issued pattedar pass books in favour of the 1st petitioner vide pass book No.000262298 and pass book No.00026299 in favour of the 2nd petitioner for equal extent out of Ac.0.27 guntas. It is further stated that the respondents herein making the channel from Komatikunta to Narsapur width of 15 meters and without issuing any notice to the petitioners and no opportunity have been given. The 1st respondent did not issue any notice to the petitioners under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is stated that if the Government acquires the land for public purpose they have to issue notice to the land owners as per Section 5-A, 6 and also Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquisition of the land without following due process of law without paying compensation, is in violation of Article 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is stated that as per Sections 9(3) 12, 18, 20 and 3 (B) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 due process of law, service of notice on person interested should be given which is mandatory under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. When the land is being acquired for construction of a channel, owner in occupation of the premises should be given notice, whereas in this case the respondents did not follow the due process of law as per Land Acquisition Act in gross abuse of law, and also in violation of Fundamental Rights of the petitioners. It is further stated that the concept of the public purpose should be include safety, security, welfare and prosperity public at large. Where as the action of the respondents in expanding the channel, for drain water violating all loss in collusion with the local M.L.A. With a political rivalry the respondents are trying to dig the 15 feet meters of channel in the middle of the fields of the petitioners, though there is a small channel in eastern side of the petitioners lands the respondents ought to have expanded the channel and taking the land on both sides in the existing channel. Whereas in this case, the respondents are taking “U” turn to cause loss to the petitioners. It is stated that the respondents are actively digging the channel and when the channel came to nearby the petitioners land, the 1st petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 1.8.2008 requesting that without acquiring the land under the provisions of the Act and without following due process of law, the respondents cannot proceed with. But whereas the official and unofficial respondents colluded and trying to dig the channel middle of the land, ignoring the alignment and as per the Survey and existing channel and to stop the digging of the channel, till they have not taken any action on his representation. The action of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of Land Acquisition Act. It is further stated that the small existing channel which is eastern side of the petitioners land the same may be expanded by paying compensation to the petitioners, but in this case to the extent of petitioners land they have to dig the channel in the middle of the land which is highly objectionable and illegal. In these circumstances, this writ petition had been filed praying for the reliefs as stated supra. In para No.3 of the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that basing on the existing canal shown in the Topo sheet No.56J/16, and village Map the Mandal surveyor fixed the peg marking at site, that the 15 meters of bed width is excavated to dispose the water easily through this canal as per designed standards. It is further stated that as the canal is an old existing canal which is shown in topo sheet No.56J/16 and in Revenue village Map the question of giving to the notices to the petitioners does not arise and as there is no fresh acquisition, initiation of Land Acquisition proceedings may not arise. It is also stated that there is no collusion with local M.L.A or political parties and as per design discharge of 26 Nos. of I.B and P.R. Tanks pertaining to villages of Thadakapally, Ensanpally, Siddipet, Venkatapur Tanks, the bed width is worked out and peg marking is made. It is also stated that the surplus course is going from one side of the petitioners land and the same is shown in the village Map, that the canal excavation is not passing through the middle of the petitioners land as alleged. It is stated that the surplus course which disposes the water of 26 No. of MJ tanks, pertaining to LB and P.R tanks discharging flood water of 3689 causes through this course and it is old construction during the period of Nizam and at present no fresh extent of land is used. The Revenue Department has also issued certificate regarding the instance of surplus course with Topo sheet and village map. The stand taken by the parties in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also in counter-affidavit has already been referred to above. A specific stand had taken in para No.6 of the counter-affidavit that the canal excavation is not passing through the middle of the petitioners land as alleged. It is further stated that the surplus course which disposes the water of 26 No of M.J tanks, pertaining to LB and P.R tanks discharging flood water of 3689 Cusecs through this course and it is old one construction during the period of Nizam and at present no fresh extent of land is used. In the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above and a specific stand taken by the 2nd respondent in para No.6 of their counter- affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that no further orders need be passed in this writ petition. The Writ Petition is closed accordingly. _______________ P.S.NARAYANA, J September 07, 2009 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.10361 OF 2009 DATE:07.09.2009 GK.