HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.9233 of 2003 Dated: 11-03-2011 Between: A.S.Mainmoonbi …Petitioner AND The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District and another Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.9233 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the notice issued by the second respondent under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of petitioner’s rights over the land in Sy.No.1408 by 9/10 admeasuring Ac.1.20 cents, situated at Aragonda Revenue Accounts, Thavanampalle Manal, Chittoor District. It is admitted that the petitioner occupied the land measuring Ac.1.20 cents in Sy.No.1408 by 9/10, situated at Arogonda Revenue Accounts, Thavanampalle Mandal, Chittoor District about 15 years back, which is classified as Vagu Porambok. To protect the possession, petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.1202 of 2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor for permanent injunction, in which the respondents 1 and 2 were arrayed as defendant Nos.5 and 4. Pending the suit, petitioner obtained an interim injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 in I.A.No.1191 of 2002. Petitioner also filed I.A.No.1200 of 2002 in which, an Advocate-commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property. The commissioner visited the site and filed his report stating that there is an existing sugar cane crop and that the petitioner laid an underground pipeline to draw the water from the borewell. At that stage, it is alleged that at the influence of the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit, the impugned notice came to be passed by the respondents and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Third respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the land in Sy.No.1408 measuring Ac.9.33 cents is classified as Vagu (Channel) poramboke for carrying surplus water to A. Gollapalli Cheruvu which are regulated and maintained by the irrigation department and the protection of these water course poramboke rests with the Revenue Department to see that no encroachments are made narrowing the channels. As the petitioner and other villagers trespassed into the vagu poramboke land affecting the channel from free flow of water, notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act was issued directing them to clear the encroachments within 7 days and the same was served on the husband of the petitioner on 31.3.2003. As the petitioner failed to submit any reply or cleared the encroachment, eviction orders were passed under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, which were served on the petitioner on 11.4.2003. By the said orders, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Thavanampalle was authorised to evict the encroachers after the expiry of 15 days time. It is stated that these respondents are not parties to the injunction order passed in I.A.No.1191 of 2002 in O.S.No.1202 of 2002. Since the land is in water course poramboke, the same is prohibited from alienation or assignment and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Since the learned Government Pleader for Revenue was unable to state the latest status of the suit, this Court directed the Registry to obtain telephonic information from the Junior Civil Judge Chittoor about the status of O.S.No.1202 of 2002 and the information received discloses that the suit was dismissed on 23.9.2005 and the same has been confirmed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of dismissal of the suit, there is no bar for the respondents to take possession of the property in question. Further as the land is in water course poramboke, the respondents are under statutory obligation to preserve the same and it cannot be assigned to any persons as it is prohibited from assignment. Therefore, the petitioner will not have any right to question the action initiated by the respondents under the Land Encroachment Act. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the eviction order passed under Section 6 of the Act, she is at liberty to file an appeal against the said order if she is so advised, with an application to condone the delay. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 11, 2011 Tsr.