IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13515 of 2005 Between: Sri D. Ramachandra Rao S/o. Satyanarayana R/o.Korumamidi Village Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector West Godavri District at Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Kovvur, West Godavari District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Nidadavole Mandal, Nidadavole, West Godavari District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Oflficer Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 5 The Superintendent Engineer Irrigation Department, Eluru West Godavari District. 6 The Assistant Engineer Errakalva Section, Irrigation Department, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 7 Sri Ganmamani Gandhi S/o.Ganeswar Rao R/o. Korumamidi Village Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.7: MR. M.JANARDHANA RAO FOR MR. K.CHIDAMBARAM The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 6 in allowing respondent No.7 to change the flow of Madhavaram canal along with flood bank bund by closing the existing canal as arbitrary, illegal and null and void. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the said respondents to restore the flow of Madhavaram canal to its original position forthwith by evicting respondent No.7 from the land in Survey No.78 and other land of Medipalli and Korumamidi Villages, Tadepalligudem and Nidadavole Mandals respectively, West Godavari District. Heard Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri M.Janardhana Rao, learned counsel representing respondent No.7. No one represented respondent Nos.5 and 6. In his affidavit, the petitioner alleged that he is the President of Water Users Association, Subbaiahkalva (supply channel of Enamadduru drain), Korumamidi, Nidadavole, West Godavari District; that water is supplied from Errakalva through the supply channel called Madhavaram Canal to the land of about 2000 acres in Korumamidi Village; that the said canal passes through R.S.Nos.76, 78, 104 and 105 and that land of an extent of about 10,000 acres was irrigated through this supply canal. It is further alleged that respondent No.7 purchased an extent of land of Ac.5.00 cents in Survey No.77, which is located on the eastern side of Survey No.78, where Madhavaram canal passes through; that the entire land in Survey No.78 is a canal poramboke and abutting the said land, there is a flood bank bund with vacant land between supply canal and flood bank bund and that respondent No.7 started closing the said supply canal by diverting the canal along with flood bank bund in order to occupy the Government poramboke land by merging the same into his private land. It is alleged that the new canal that is being dug by respondent No.7 is abutting the flood bank and if the said canal is dug by respondent No.7, the flood bank bund would automatically get weakened, there will not be any protection for the eastern bund and flood water will hit the boundary bund, which is likely to cause breach to the flood bank eastern bund. It is also alleged that in such an event, water may enter into the village and inundate the agricultural lands of Korumamidi and surrounding villages. It is also alleged that despite representations having been made to the official respondents, no action has been taken. This Court by order, dated 24.06.2005, directed the respondents to dispose of representation, dated 21.04.2005 of the petitioner and submit a report to this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that no report is filed by the official respondents. I have perused the separate counter-affidavits filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.5. In both the counters, it is admitted that the inspection made by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nidadavole revealed that respondent No.7 and one G.Appa Rao, who is evidently the son of respondent No.7, illegally occupied the Government poramboke land in R.S.No.78 and that the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation, Errakalva Section, Tadepalligudem lodged complaint, dated 06.07.2005 before the Station House Officer, Samsirgudem Police Station to take action against them and the police registered F.I.R.No.74 of 2005 for the offences under Section 430 read with Section 34 IPC and that the accused surrendered before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate on 14.07.2005 and were released on bail on the same day. It is further stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nidadavole inspected the irrigation channel and Government poramboke land on 10.10.2005 to evict the encroachers and restore the supply channel and that supply channel area was found covered with full of rain water and mud making it not possible for vehicles to enter the said area during rainy reason and, therefore, restoration of irrigation channels could not be done. It is also stated that supply channels are under the control of Irrigation Department and their maintenance and repair works are being done by the said Department. The answering respondent also stated that on 26.06.2005, he addressed letter to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Eluru informing that the irrigation channel was changed by respondent No.7 and his son, and requested to take necessary action immediately. He also stated that so far as encroachments on the Government land are concerned, necessary proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act are being initiated. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5, he admitted that respondent No.7 dug a new channel unauthorisedly by closing the existing supply channel without the knowledge of the official respondents. He stated that immediately after receipt of representation, dated 25.06.2005, the Assistant Engineer, Errakalva Section, Tadepalligudem reported the matter to the Deputy Executive Engineer, Uplands Sub-Division, Koyyalagudem on 25.06.2005 itself and lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Samsirgudem Police Station on 06.07.2005 for taking action against respondent No.7 and his son. It is also admitted that by the illegal action of respondent No.7, natural course of supply channel which feeds 2120 acres through M.I.tanks Ayacut will be severely affected and due to excavation of new channel along with Korumamidi flood bank, the toe of the flood bank is weakened and if Errakalva flood occurs, the flood bank will get washed away and cause great damage to the inhabitants of Korumamidi Village besides submerging the entire Ayacut. He prayed the Court to pass order for restoration of original course of supply channel at his own cost. I am perplexed at the attitude displayed by respondent Nos.1 to 6 more so, that of respondent No.7. The tenor of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5 suggests that they only play the role of bystanders. Having admitted that respondent No.7 committed an unlawful act of encroaching into a Government land, closing an existing irrigation channel having the potential of irrigating 2120 acres of land and resorting to hazardous acts of opening a new supply channel, which would weaken the existing bund and cause floods, he has not shown any urgency whatsoever in taking immediate remedial measures. Both respondent Nos.3 and 5 seem to rest content with filing counter- affidavits by claiming that they gave necessary complaints in the Police Station and writing letters without attending to the work of repairing the damage caused by respondent No.7. Respondent No.5 filed his counter- affidavit on 29.08.2005 i.e. more than two months after the writ petition was filed. This period, in my considered view, was enough to commence the work of closing the channel unauthorisedly dug by respondent No.7 and re-excavating the channel closed by respondent No.7. But respondent No.5 has not claimed that any efforts in that regard were even commenced except addressing certain letters to his subordinates. This attitude of respondent No.5 shows lack of accountability and responsibility on his part in ensuring proper protection and maintenance of the irrigation channels and ensure public safety. Respondent No.5 in his counter-affidavit seeks to abdicate his responsibility of restoration of supply channel and instead, wants this Court to direct respondent No.7 to undertake the said work. In making such a request, evidently, he is oblivious of his responsibility in first ensuring that the channel, which was illegally closed by respondent No.7 requires immediate restoration by him, keeping aside the question whether respondent No.7 should bear the cost in this regard. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 being public servants, who are expected to protect public interest at all times, failed to act in the manner in which they are expected in a society governed by rule of law. This attitude of respondent Nos.1 to 6 is indeed painful. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are directed to ensure that the channel, which was illegally closed by respondent No.7 is restored, if not already done, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.7 has not filed any counter-affidavit contraverting any of the allegations contained either in the affidavit filed by the petitioner or in the two counters filed by the official respondents. Hence, all the allegations against respondent No.7 stand admitted. The official respondents after restoration of the channel and closing the unauthorized channel are entitled to initiate appropriate action against respondent No.7 for recovery of the cost incurred on the said works and strengthening of the bund if it suffered any damage. They shall also pursue the criminal complaint said to have been registered against respondent No.7 with all seriousness it deserves. If the directions given hereinabove are not carried out by respondent Nos.1 to 6, liberty is given to the petitioner to file appropriate application before this Court for taking action against them. The writ petition is allowed against respondent No.7 with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). He shall deposit the said amount in favour of the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. C.V.NARAGJUNA REDDY, J 19th June, 2008. kvni