HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 5170 of 2010 Between: Karanam Venkoba Rao. ..... PETITIONERS AND Govt. of A.P., rep. By its Secretary, I&CA Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. .....RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 5170 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner herein seeks a direction from this Court to declare the action of respondents 2 to 5 and 7 in not disposing of the petitioner’s complaint/representation, in not paying him compensation to which he is entitled for the damage caused by the improper execution of works by the fifth respondent, and in not taking remedial steps to avoid recurrence of such incidents in future, as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the second respondent to complete the assessment of loss and pay compensation for the loss sustained by the petitioner. The petitioner would submit that he is the owner of the land in Sy.Nos. 363 and 364 of P.C. Pyapili Village, Vajra Karur Mandal, Ananthapur District; from out of the total extent of the land owned by him, an extent of Ac.3.00 was rendered useless by the periodic breach in the ridge on the canal constructed by the fifth respondent; the fifth respondent was entrusted with the work of laying and maintaining the canal on Handri Niva river under the Handri Niva Sujala Sravanthi Project; due to improper laying and maintenance there occurred periodical breaches around the banks of the canal; on such occasions the ryots, including the petitioner, suffered huge loss on account of water gushing into the abutting fields resulting in sand and mud settling on the paddy fields; and the respondents should be directed to assess the damage and pay compensation. The petitioner would rely on the report of the Tahsildar, wherein it is stated that, on 08.06.2009, due to negligence of Handri Niva Sujala Sravanthi canal contractor, water was pumped outside from the canal, which resulted in damage. The question whether there is damage to the crop as a result of poor construction by the contractor; whether it is the contractor alone or both the contractor and the Government who are liable to compensate the petitioner etc are all disputed questions of fact which are better adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. These disputed questions of fact are not, ordinarily, adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such other remedies, as are available to him in law to seek compensation for the alleged loss caused to him, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:08.03.2010 usd