IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.19730 OF 2009 Between : Choppa Laxmikar Reddy and others. .... Petitioner A N D 1. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation &CAD 2. The Superintending Engineer 3. The Engineer in Chief,Irrigation &CAD Dept. …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.19730 OF 2009 O R D E R: On 15.09.2009 this Court ordered notice before admission and further made the following order: “Government Pleader seeks time to get instructions. Post after two weeks. In the meanwhile, the temporary bridges set up by the villagers of Peddakarampally Gram Panchayat, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District at Kilometers 7.60 on Annamayya Project main canal shall not be demolished”. 2. The interim order granted earlier is being extended from time to time. W.V.M.P.No.4101 of 2009, is filed by the respondents to vacate the interim order dated 15.09.2009. Reply affidavit had also been filed. When the vacate application came up for hearing, the learned counsel on record made a request for final disposal of the writ petition and hence the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally. 3. Heard Sri G.Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel representing the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, representing the respondents. 4. The learned counsel representing the petitioners had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit field in support of the writ petition, the stand taken in the counter affidavit, averments made in the reply affidavit and also the facts and circumstances of the case and prays that the writ petition has to be allowed by issuing appropriate directions. 5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation made their contentions in the counter affidavit and in the light of the same, he contends that the interim direction cannot be continued and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the temporary bridge set up at Kilometers 7.60 of Annamayya Project Main Canal (for short, “the project”) in Kadapa District, without constructing a permanent bridge as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to construct a permanent bridge at Kilometers 7.60 on project before demolishing the temporary bridge set up by the villagers. 7. The writ petitioners are residents of Lingampally Village, Bahirajupalli Harijanawada, Mulakayapally Village of Peddakarampally Gram Panchayat. The petitioners and other villagers are dependent upon the agricultural operations, for eking their livelihood. 8. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that the project divides these villagers from the agricultural lands and fields of the villagers, and as such the villagers have to cross the project to go to their fields. The said project had been constructed almost twenty years back. Since then, the villagers have been facing great difficulty in crossing the canal, inasmuch as there are two bridges constructed across the canal at 6.70 kilometers upstream and 10.4 kilometers downstream. These bridges are at the great distance from the village and the villagers have to take a long detour to get these bridges and even after crossing these bridges the villagers are facing difficulty in reaching their fields as hills and other agricultural lands lie in between and the villagers are unable to take their carts and other transport vehicles to their fields. 9. It is also the case of the petitioners that, in view of the said difficulties, the villagers had laid a rough bridge across the main canal at 7.60 kilometers at their own cost about three to four years back and they have been using the said bridge since then. There was no complaint or objection from the Irrigation Department or any other Government authority regarding the said bridge. As the bridge is of a temporary nature, the villagers wanted a permanent bridge to be constructed and had made representations to the first and second respondents for construction of such a bridge and had offered to construct the bridge with their own funds. On the basis of these representations, dated 10.08.2009 and 17.08.2009, the first respondent had addressed a letter bearing No. EE/ANP/KDP/CPC/201 SC dated 20.08.2009 to the second respondent, recommending that the villagers be permitted to construct the said bridge as there would be no financial burden on the department and also there would not be any obstruction or hindrance for the regular passage of water in the main canal. 10. The said letter dated 20.08.2009 reads as hereunder: “Adverting to the above subject it is to submit that villagers of Lingarajupalli, Bahirajupalli, Harijanawada, Mittapalli, Dommarajupalli, Subbarajupalli, Pedda Karampalli, Mulakyipalli pertaining to the Peddakarampalli Grampanchayat of Rajampet (M) have represented on 10.08.2009 and 17.08.2009 requesting for according permission to construct a bridge across Annamayya Project main canal Ch. 7.60 km. at their own cost, since there is no cross passage as that place which is very essential for getting their goods, cattle, and for transportation of their yields of crops etc., They have represented stating that they have already laid an iron bridge as a temporary means of transportation due to necessity and further stated that they are ready even to construct the cross bridge their own cost and kind and requested for according permission to that extent. In this connection, it is to submit that the Annamayya Project main canal run to a length of 23.630 km. to irrigate an ayacut of 22,500 Acs. in Rajampet and Pullampet Mandals. Two bridges were already constructed @ km 6.700 on upstream and @ km. 10.40 on down stream on either side of the bridge proposed to be constructed by the villagers @ 7.60 km. across the main canal. There is no possible way to reach above fields through two bridges i.e., at km. 6.20 and 10.04 km. because the hills and crop fields are abstracting. The proposed bridge at 7.60 km. is convenient to them and may be allowed to be constructed by the villagers at their own cost as per their request, since there would be no financial burden to the department as well as no any damage or inconvenience to the regular passage of water in the main canal. The bridge can be designed and constructed with out affecting the Hydraulic particulars of canal. The H.Ps @ 7.60 km. of A.P., main canal are as follows: Section :5.200 M x 1.116 Bed Tall in 3500 Discharge :4.09 Cusecs. Velocity 0.611 M/Sec. Require :3.40 Cusecs. Side slope 1:1 F.S.D. :1.20 M Bed width 2.5 Mts. As L.S. plan of main canal is also prepared and herewith enclosed for favour of information. Hence I request that necessary permission to cross bridge at Ch. 7.60 km. of main canal is constructed by the Pedda Karampalli Gram Panchayat villagers at their own cost may please be either accorded or obtained and communicate at an early date. A copy of representation of the above villagers is herewith enclosed”. 11. It is also stated that second respondent after considering the representations of the villagers and the letter of the first respondent bearing No. TS/AEE-4/ANP/349 ENC dated 07.09.2009, requesting the third respondent to grant necessary permission for construction of bridge at 7.60 kilometers main canal by the villagers of Peddakarampally Gram Panchayat at their own costs. 12. The said letter reads as hereunder: “ I submit that in the reference cited, the Executive Engineer, Annamayya Project Division, Kadapa has submitted that villagers pertaining to Peddakarampalli gram panchayat of Rajampet Mandal have represented requesting for according permission to construct a bridge across Annamayya Project Main canal @ Ch. 7.60 km. since there is no cross passage at the place which is very essential for transporting their goods, cattle, crop yield etc., They are ready even to construct the bridge at their own cost. At present a temporary iron bridge is laid by them because of necessity. The Executive Engineer also submitted that the Annamayya Project main canal runs to a length of 23.630 km. to irrigate an ayacut of 22,500 Acres in Rajampet and Pullampet Mandals. Two bridges were already constructed @ km 6.700 on U/s and @ km 10.40 on D/s on either side of bridge now proposed to be constructed there is no possible way to reach above fields through the other two bridges i.e., at km 6.20 and at km. 10.04. The proposed bridge is convenient to them, and may be allowed to construct at their own cost since there would be no financial burden to the department as well as inconvenience to the department as well as inconvenience to the regular passage of water in the main canal. The bridge can be designed and constructed without effecting the Hydraulic particulars of canal. The H.P.S. @ 7.60 km. of Annamayya Project main canal are as follows: Section :5.200 M x 1.116 Bed Tall in 3500 Discharge :4.09 Cusecs. Velocity 0.611 M/Sec. Require:3.40 Cusecs. Side slope 1:1 F.S.D.:1.20 M Bed width 2.5 Mts. L.S. plan of main canal is also prepared and herewith enclosed for favour of information. Hence I request the Engineer-in-chief, Medium Irrigation, Hyderabad necessary permission may please be accorded for the construction of bridge at Ch 7.60 km. main canal by the villagers Peddakarampalli Gram Panchayat at their own cost and communicate at early date for taking further necessary action”. 13. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that while the matters stood thus the first respondent issued a notice to one of the residents of the area by way of letter bearing No.EE/ANP/KDP/CPC-6/VOL 299M dated 08.09.2009, wherein the first respondent had called upon this resident to remove the temporary bridge as the same is said to be an unauthorized bridge. Having come to know of this, the villagers of Peddakarampally Gram Panchayat had approached the first respondent and requested him not to disturb the bridge as it was the lifeline for three hamlets of the Gram Panchayat and removal of this bridge would affect the agricultural operations and also cause untold hardships and miseries to all these villagers and their family members and also the agricultural labourers who undertake work in the fields. However, for the reasons best known to the first respondent, steps are being taken to demolish the temporary bridge without even bothering to take steps to construct a permanent bridge. 14. Further, it is stated that the officials came to the site of the bridge on 14.09.2009 to remove the bridge and left because of the opposition of the villagers. However, the irrigation officials had stated that they would be coming back on 15.09.2009 to demolish the bridge with police assistance. It is stated that the very same first respondent had addressed a letter to his superiors claiming the construction of the bridge at this site would not affect the flow of water and construction of such a bridge is essential. However, the first respondent has now taken a contrary stand claiming that this bridge is unauthorized and has to be demolished. It is stated that the proposed action of the first respondent in seeking to demolish the bridge set up by the villagers at Kilometers 7.60 on the project is clearly arbitrary, illegal, highhanded and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that demolition of this bridge would cause huge hardships to the villagers in their quality of life and would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the removal of this bridge would cause great difficulty for the villagers to carry on their occupation. 15. In the said circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this court and obtained interim direction as aforesaid. 16. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that the project is a completed project and its main canal runs to a length of 23.63 km. to irrigate to an ayacut of 22, 500 acres in Rajampet and Pullampet Mandals of Kadapa District. It is stated that the petitioners have stated in the affidavit that the villagers of Pedda Karampalli Panchayat are facing much difficulty in the transportation of their agricultural goods, cattle, crop yield etc., by crossing the project at Ch.7.6 kilomters nearer to which their villagers are located since there is no means of crossing provided by the Irrigation Department, as a result of which they had to construct a temporary Iron Bridge @ 7.6 Kilometers. The bridge constructed is unauthorized and the Department directed to remove the bridge. 17. It is further stated that there are two bridges already constructed by the Department Ch. 6.2 kilometers upstream and at 10.4 kilomters down stream on either side of temporary bridge at kilometers 7.60 of A.P. Main canal which are being utilized by the villagers for the conveyance of their necessaries. The two bridges are convenient for transportation of light vehicles. They are not very far and they are at distance of 1.4 kilomters and 2.8 kilometers respectively and with no difficulty the light vehicles ( up to 10 tonnes) can pass through, and the department never objected for the same. 18. It is further stated that an Iron bridge at Km. 7.6 was constructed unauthorizedly by the petitioner No.1 and other without bringing the fact to the notice of the Department and the heavy vehicle transportation of more than 12 tone capacity is being entertained. Due to allowing the heavy vehicular transportation, damages to the canal bank lining to canal and obstructions to the regular water flows in the canal is affected. The temporary bridge is found to have been laid by the petitioner No.1 i.e., Sri Choppa Lakshmikar Reddy, and M/s Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., N.G.O., Colony, Kadapa, who have installed metal crushing machines in the fields near by Ch. 7.6 km. of main canal. Transporation of huge quantities of crushed metal and rock in heavy vehicles of 12 tone and more capacity is being transported through the Iron Bridge by them. The villagers of Lingampalli and Hastivaripalli Villagers of Peddakarampalli Panchayat have represented on 20.07.2009 that the heavy vehicles of crusted metal and rock and running through the Iron Bridge which is causing damages to their fields and the canal banks are being cracked. (copy enclosed). In view of the safety of the canal, they were addressed by the Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P. Sub-Division No.3, vide letter No.37, dated 17.8.2009 and by this office vide letter No.299, dated 8.9.2009 to remove the temporary bridge. 19. It is stated that the villagers of Peddakarampalli panchayat of Rajampet (M) have represented on 10.08.2009 and 17.08.2009 seeking permission for construction of a permanent bridge at the place of the iron bridge now installed, ( at 7.6 km.) with their own cost since there is no other nearest means of crossing facility. As such it was addressed to the Engineer-in-Chief, Medium Irrigation, Hyderabad, vide Lr.No.Ts/AEEE- 4/AMT/340 ENC, dated 7.9.2009 by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Kadapa for according permission to construct a permanent bridge at 7.60 km. at the cost of the Villagers and the matter is pending before Engineer-in-Chief, Medium Irrigation. 20. It is stated that the Department is not against to the needs to the villagers but the petitioner No.1 and other who installed metal crushing plants are conveying their projects in heavy vehicles through this Iron Bridge and causing damage to the canal. Hence it is objectionable and to be removed since the Iron Bridge is laid without getting prior approval from the department. 21. It is also stated that the since the temporary Iron Bridge is being utilized for the conveyance of heavy loads of crushed metal and rock, as a result of which the canal bund is damaging Sri C. Lakshmikar Reddy, and M/s Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., N.G.O., Colony, Kadapa were addressed vide this office letter No.299 M, dated 8.9.2009, to remove the iron bridge. Whatever the reason and use, though reasonable, prior permission should have been taken from the Irrigation Department. Hence it is treated as unauthorized. Besides the agricultural and other light essentials, the heavy vehicular transportation running through this bridge cause damage to the canal. 22. Further it is stated that the light vehicles like carts etc., except heavy vehicles are being utilized by the villagers on the side 23. It is also stated that in view of the reasonable plea of the representatives, as per their request, the permission for construction of permanent bridge by the own cost of the villagers is sought for from the higher authorities. Unless competent authority approval is obtained, the temporary bridge with heavy vehicular transport is objectionable and to be demolished in view of the safety of the canal. 24. Further it is stated that Sri C.Lakshmikar Reddy, the 1st petitioner agreed to remove the bridge and requested on 15.09.2009 to give a time gap of three days time to remove the bridge with no damages to the canal. In the light of the above fact the temporary bridge have to be removed immediately in view of the safety of canal and permanent bridge may be allowed to be constructed by the villagers with their own cost as per their request, which is under examination of the higher authorities. There would be no objection to this department to utilize the bridges constructed at Ch.6.2 kilometers upstream and 10.4 kilometers downstream with light vehicular transport of their daily necessaries until the permanent bridge is allowed by the department at Ch. 7.6 kilometers. 25. It is stated that the temporary bridge constructed unauthorizedly across A.P. main canal at 7.6 kilometers is without taking any permission from Irrigation Department. Due to the temporary bridge the canal lining inspection track are damaged and flow in canal is obstructed. Due to obstruction of flow in canal the ayacut is hereby affected. The total ayacut has not been commendable due to temporary bridge. Even temporary bridge must be removed. This is the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. 26. Reply affidavit was filed in detail adverting to the averments made in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the counter affidavit. The said allegations are denied. It is true that there were two bridges of 6.2 km. upstream and 10.4 km. downstream of the stream. However, both these bridges are taken away and the bridge at 7.6 kilomters, which has been set up by the villagers themselves is absolutely essential for the villagers for being able to move across the canal. The allegation that heavy vehicle transport of more than 12 mts. capacity is being run across the bridge is incorrect and is denied. The villagers in an around the area are benefited greatly from the bridge and the allegation that this bridge is causing damage to fields and canal banks is incorrect and is denied. It is not clear how a bridge over the canal can damage the agricultural fields besides the canal. The further allegation that the canal banks are being cracked is false and is denied. The temporary bridge is very small and the allegation that such a bridge can cause cracks in the lining is absolutely false and is denied. The allegation that the villagers of Lingampally and Hasthivaripalli villages had come to the first respondent is not within the knowledge of this petitioner and a copy of the complaint may be served on the petitioner to answer the same fully. 27. The main grievance of the other petitioner is that despite the recommendations and correspondence which had been already taken place in between the first and second respondents, a contrary stand is taken in the counter affidavit in paragraph 5 filed by the respondents. These are factual contradictions and this court is not inclined to go into all these factual controversies. 28. However, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the third respondent – Engineer in Chief, Irrigation & CAD Department is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioners, which is more or less in the public interest, and take appropriate decision in this regard within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, status-quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by both the parties 29. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J. February 03, 2010. YVL