IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25523 of 2002 Between: Pilla Applaswamy S/o Appanna R/o Kavitam, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Engineer, Irragation Section, Martair, Pemumantra Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari 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 appropriate Writ, order or direction more particualrly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents proposed action aganist the petitioners lands (1) Ac.1.59cents in R.S.No.150/1, (2) Ac.0.35 cents in R.S.No.147/9, (3)Ac.2.24 cents R.S.No.1152/2, (4) Ac.0.48 cents R.S.No.150/3A, (5)Ac.0.20 cents R.S.No.154/2A, (6) Ac.1.08 cents R.S.No.157/4, (7) Ac.0.96 cents R.S.No.142/2, (8)Ac.0.10 cents R.S.No.151/10A, (9) 0.05 cents R.S.No.142/1, and (10) Ac.No.1.08 cents R.S.No.143/4B of Jagannadhapuram Village, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District totaling an extent of Ac.8.58 cents as illegal, arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOTABHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.25523 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner challenges notice, dated 19.12.2002 issued by the Assistant Engineer-first respondent. Through the impugned notice, the first respondent alleged that the petitioner had cultivated the land under Pipe No.31 of an Irrigation project though it was not identified for the second crop. The petitioner states that even when water is not released through canal or pipe for the second crop, cultivation was being undertaken through bore wells and in that view of the matter, the impugned notice cannot be sustained in law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation. The impugned notice was issued in relation to the second crop for Fasali 1412. The notice by itself does not have any reflection on the rights of the petitioner on the regular basis or permanent basis. The allocation of water for second crop under the project depends on the availability of the water and other similar factors. The interim order passed by this court has already been taken care of the second crop of that particular year. Therefore, nothing needs to be decided in this writ petition and it is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 26.12.2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MN}