THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.11048 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in constructing drainage channel through the land of the petitioner admeasuring 0.15 gts in survey No.437 situated in the revenue village within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that after death of the father of the petitioner, by name, Ponnam Narayana, the petitioner and his mother succeeded to 1/3rd share of his father in the abovementioned land since the only brother of the petitioner also died unmarried. While so, the respondents, without any permission, started construction of drainage from the middle of the land in question, separating it into two pieces, thereby making the land unuseful. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the second respondent on 01.06.2006 stating that the construction of drainage line without issuing any notice is illegal and requested for stoppage of the construction. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are constructing the drainage line through his land without acquiring the land as per law and without issuing any notice to him. While issuing notice before admission in the writ petition on 06.06.2006, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the Municipal Council passed a resolution No.357 dated 15.04.2004 to undertake the construction of drainage work with the world bank funds. It is relevant to extract a portion of paragraph 3 of the counter- affidavit, which reads as under: “It is further submitted that it is not true that there is no sanction or approval of Council for construction of the drainage from the land of the petitioner. In fact, the Municipal Council passed a Resolution No.357, dated 15.04.2004 to undertake the construction of drainage work with the World Bank funds to the cost of Rs.26.12 lakhs. When the petitioner made an objection, the work was stopped and the Scheme is closed as on today. It is not true that the petitioner was enjoying the property. In fact, by nature the said land is low lying area and throughout the year the rain water and drain water will flow. To prevent the soil erosion on either side of the drainage channel, the said construction was undertaken. It is not true that this respondent has dispossessed the petitioner from his land. As per Section 293(2) of Municipal Corporation Manual the Commissioner may enter upon and construct any new drain in the place of existing drain in any land wherein any municipal drain ahs already been constructed or repaired or altered any municipal drain so constructed. As such, this respondent has undertaken the construction on the existing drain. Hence, this respondent has not violated any rights of the petitioner.” From the counter averments, it is clear that to prevent soil erosion on either side of the drainage channel, the said construction was undertaken; that the petitioner was not dispossessed from his land and that when the petitioner objected to the construction, the work was stopped, and the scheme is not in existence as on today. The construction is in public interest. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has no objection for construction of the drainage line in the land, provided it is acquired as per law. The learned standing counsel for Municipal Corporation, on instructions, submitted that the respondents are not widening the drainage channel, but only constructing a wall to protect further soil erosion. In view of the same, the respondents are at liberty to make construction without further widening the drainage channel affecting the land of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ N.V. RAMANA, J 09th July, 2010 GHN