IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 1717 of 2001 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.SUMALINI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 1717 of 2001 ORAL ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner is that, though she was the major ayacutdhar, the work of restoration of the minor irrigation breach to Hanumanthula Cheruvu, Makkapallli village, at an estimated cost of Rs.2.00 lakhs, was not entrusted to her and that non-entrustment of such work was contrary to G.O.Ms.No.589 dated 29.9.1989. This Court, by order dated 5.2.2001, allowed the writ petition and directed the work to be entrusted to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the 4th respondent herein preferred an appeal, in W.A.No.1015 of 2001, wherein the Division Bench directed that the appellant in W.A.No.1015 of 2001 be impleaded as a party and that the writ petition be heard afresh. G.O.Ms.No.589 dated 29.9.1989 provides that execution of minor works shall be entrusted to the major ayacutdhar. The factual dispute in the present case is whether it is the petitioner, or the 4th respondent, who is the major ayacutdhar. While initially the 4th respondent is said to have stated that he owned Ac.7-35 guntas of wet land, in reply to which the petitioner had submitted a certificate that he owned Ac.8-18 guntas of land, the 4th respondent, thereafter, is said to have informed that he owned Ac.10-19 guntas of land which is more than the land holding of the petitioner. The Mandal Revenue Officer is said to have clarified, vide letter 7.3.2001, that the 4th respondent had Ac.10-19 guntas as on 5.2.2001. Consequent to the order of this Court in W.P.No.1717 of 2001 dated 5.2.2001 being set aside, in W.A.No.1014 of 2001 dated 25.6.2001, the work was entrusted to the 4th respondent. In his counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent would state that, due to exigency of work and urgency, the Mandal Parishad had no alternative except to entrust the work to the major ayacutdhar by entering into an agreement on 18.7.2001 and that part payment had been made to him on 31.8.2001. It is stated that the work in question has already been completed. I see no reason, at this point of time, to go into the question whether the petitioner or the 4th respondent was the major ayacutdhar entitled to entrustment of minor irrigation works in terms of G.O.Ms.No.589 dated 29.9.1989. It is not even known as to whether the said G.O. still continues to be in force. I see no reason to grant the relief sought in the writ petition. Needless to state that, in case the said G.O. is still in force and any other minor irrigation work is intended to be taken up, the order now passed shall not preclude the petitioner from making a claim to be entrusted such work and it is for the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations and as the cause in the writ petition does not survive, the work having been executed already, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ 12-3-2009 asp