@#@#@#@#@#@#@ HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO:23830 of 2000 DATED: 13-02-2008 Between: 1. Panguluri Nageswara Rao and 10 others ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Government of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 5 others. .....RESPONDENTS @#@#@#@#@#@#@ ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioners for the land taken by them for execution of drainage works as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners are contending that their lands are adjacent to an existing drain. In the year 2000 the respondents have widened the drain by removing the earth. In that process, the respondents covered their lands also for the purpose of widening the drainage with an assurance that they will send proposals to the Government for acquiring the lands and payment of compensation. Basing on the assurance the petitioners kept quite and gave permission to the respondents to widen the drainage. They have also mentioned the extents of lands which were occupied by the respondents for the purpose of digging the drain. Respondents 1, 4 and 6 filed a counter contending that no part of the land of the petitioners have been occupied by the respondents and the earth was removed in the existing drain to make it clear for the purpose of free flow of the water in the drain, therefore, they need not pay any compensation for the petitioners and further, that if any earth remained on the lands of the petitioners it will be removed. The petitioners though contended that the drainage was dug in their land by widening the existing drain they could not file any combined sketch demarcating the line between their lands and the drain. In the absence of such material, it is difficult for this Court to issue any direction for payment of compensation. When it is the specific contention of the respondents that they did not occupy any portion of the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of widening the drain, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue the matter for compensation either in the Civil Court or in the appropriate forum, if they have sufficient material to show that their lands were also occupied by the respondents for the purpose of widening the drain. No order as to costs. _________________ 13th February, 2008 SKM