HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12303 of 2004 Date: 23rd December 2010 Between : Avula Subrahmanyam. …….Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Manubolu, Nellore District & others. …..….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12303 of 2004 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in interfering with the rain water collected in the tank dug by the petitioner in the land covered by Sy.No.240/1B of Bandepalli village of Manubolu Mandal in Nellore District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he belong to Backward class community and was a landless poor person, and as such, based on the application filed by him, he was assigned an extent of Ac.2.10 cents in Sy.No.240/1B and Ac.0.90 cents in Sy.No.326/2 of Bandepalli revenue village, and D-Form patta was also granted in his favour, in respect of the said land. It is the case of the petitioner that as sufficient ground water was not available, by taking loan from Syndicate Bank, he dug a small tank in his own land, to collect rain water for cultivation purpose and is cultivating the remaining land assigned to him. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the unofficial respondents have no authority to draw water from the tank dug by him, at the instance of the local MLA, the 1st respondent is allowing respondents 2 to 8 to draw water from his tank, by erecting an electrical motor. Such an interference by the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the private respondents, is questioned in this writ petition. Counter affidavit is filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manubolu. In the counter affidavit, while admitting that there is an assignment to an extent of 3 acres in favour of petitioner as referred above, it is stated that as verified from the Diglot of Bandepalli village, the land is classified as Vagu Poramboku, but there was no vagu on the ground. It is further stated that the entire land is flat on ground with cultivation, without vagu. Referring to the application submitted by the 2nd respondent to take water from the vagu, an inquiry was being conducted, but the 2nd respondent has high-handedly installed electric motor to the tank dug by the petitioner and drawn water to his lands. It is further stated that the 1st respondent has evicted the encroachers, who were illegally drawing water from the tank of the petitioner, but once again, attempts were made to instal motor by the 2nd respondent. Referring to the various assignments made in respect of the land in Sy.No.240/1B, which totally admeasures Ac.22.36 cents, it is stated that the 2nd respondent has no authority to instal motor to draw water from the pond, which is dug by the petitioner. In similar lines, another counter affidavit is filed by respondents 2 to 8, stating that as much as the land in question is classified as a vagu, the very assignments made are irregular. It is submitted that as they were drawing water from vagu, under the guise of assignment, they cannot be deprived of drawing water. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri G.Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 8. Though there is an allegation of interference by the 1st respondent, in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is categorically stated that when the 2nd respondent has installed a motor and was drawing water from the tank dug by the petitioner in the land assigned to him, steps were taken to remove the said motor. In that view of the matter, it is clear that there is no interference by the 1st respondent. Although it is pleaded by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 8 that the very assignments are illegal and no assignments are permissible in vagu poramboke, the validity of such assignments is not subject matter of the writ petition. The fact remains that the assignments are not in dispute and it is further stated that though the land in Sy.No.240/1B is classified as vagu poramboke as per the Diglot prepared in the year 1905, it is stated that the total land covered by Sy.No.240/1B admeasuring Ac.22.36 cents, is a flat land being cultivated with paddy and covered by various assignments. In that view of the matter, and as much as the assignment in favour of petitioner is not in dispute in this writ petition, it is not possible to go into the validity of the assignments. In view of the stand of the 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent has made an application and even when his request was under consideration, he has erected the electric motor in the pond dug by the petitioner, and hence, steps were taken for removal of such motor, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition placing on record such stand of the 1st respondent that the pond was dug by the petitioner in his own land and he has also taken steps for removal of the electric motor fitted by the 2nd respondent in the pond belonging to the petitioner. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd December 2010 ajr