THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.21661 of 2009 DATED: 16.08.2010 Between: Doodekula Nagamani and others. .. Petitioners And Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & Command Area Development Department, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioners claim to be the owners of various extents of land situated at Doolamvaripalli Village, Kalasapadu Mandal, Kadapa District. They state that, at the instance of the 2nd respondent- Executive Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project Division, Porumamilla, Kadapa District, the 4th respondent, who was entrusted with the work of constructing left canal of Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Reservoir of Telugu Ganga Project, dug their lands for collecting gravel to be used in the construction of subject canal and though they resisted the digging at the inception as the same would make their lands uncultivable, but however, since they were promised to be compensated suitably, they allowed for digging of their lands. Pursuant thereto and after their repeated requests, the 2nd respondent ordered the 4th respondent to pay Rs.80,000/- per acre and the 4th respondent, having agreed to pay as such, paid only Rs.20,000/- per acre to them and the remaining amounts are not paid and that their representations to the 2nd respondent, seeking to take appropriate action in the matter, are not acted upon. Hence, they filed the present writ petition seeking direction to the respondent authorities to take steps for payment of adequate compensation as promised by the 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that as per the agreement entered into between the Irrigation Department and the 4th respondent- executing agency, payments towards excavation of soils etc. in any lands is the responsibility of the executing agency and the 2nd respondent is no way concerned with the same. It is, further, stated that compensation for the lands of the petitioners, acquired for canal excavation, was already paid by the concerned revenue authorities and the promise of paying compensation to a tune of Rs.80,000/- per acre by the 2nd respondent, for barren soils, is beyond truth. The 4th respondent also filed a detailed counter-affidavit, stating that the petitioners gave consent, by way of separate agreements on 05.05.2006, to the 4th respondent to dig their lands for collecting gravel to be used in the construction, on payment of Rs.20,000/- per acre. It is further stated that the 4th respondent paid the amounts payable to the petitioners, by way of cheques drawn on State bank of India, Yerramukkapalli Branch, Kadapa, and having received the said amounts as consented by them, the petitioners cannot turn around and contend that, in spite of the 2nd respondent ordering the 4th respondent to pay compensation at Rs.80,000/- per acre, the 4th respondent paid only Rs.20,000/- per acre. Copies of the agreements executed by the petitioners and the cheques issued in their favour by the 4th respondent are also filed along with the counter-affidavit of the 4th respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government for Irrigation and Command Area Development appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. Admittedly, the petitioners’ lands were dug by the 4th respondent for the purpose of collecting gravel to be used in the subject construction work. Though the petitioners contend that they were promised to pay Rs.80,000/- per acre for collecting gravel by digging their lands, the fact remains, as is evident from the counter-affidavit of the 4th respondent and the material papers annexed thereto, the petitioners gave consent to the 4th respondent to dig their lands and collect the gravel, on payment of Rs.20,000/- per acre to them, and they have also received the said amounts, by way of cheques, from the 4th respondent. Thus, it cannot be said that the 4th respondent did not pay the admitted amount to the petitioners, and hence no directions as sought for can be given to the respondent authorities. The writ petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 16th August, 2010 IBL