THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.20318 of 2009 DATED: 28.07.2010 Between:- Haridasupuram Water Users Association Haridasupuram Village, Nandigam Mandal, Srikaulam rep. by its President Kanathi Anand .. Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioner association namely Haridasupuram Water Users’ Association, Haridasupuram Village, Nandigam Mandal, Srikakulam, represented by its President, filed the present writ petition, seeking directions to respondents 2 and 3- District Collector, Srikakulam and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali, respectively, to pass appropriate orders on its representations dated 28.07.2008 and 31.07.2008. Petitioner states that there exists a tank known as ‘Haridasupuram Pedda Cheruvu’ situated in an extent of 120 acres in Sy.No.128 of their village namely Haridasupuram Village and it caters to the water-needs of the villagers. It further states that the 6th respondent, belonging to the neighbouring village namely Kamadhenuvu Village, claiming that she was granted patta in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.1.25 cents Sy.No.55/10 (part) of Kamadhenuvu Village, which is situated towards the western side of the tank and classified as tank poramboke, started digging earth in the said poramboke land for the purpose of raising a bund, by encroaching into the tank, with a view to convert the dry land into wet land. According to the petitioner, the said activity taken up by the 6th respondent would affect the inflow of water into the tank and would also cause hindrance for outflow of water from the tank, resulting in cutting of the lower bund in times of floods, and that no patta can be granted in respect of tank poramboke land as per law, but the revenue authorities, ignoring these facts, issued patta in respect of the land in question in favour of the 6th respondent, contrary to law, and when the 4th respondent- Tahsildar was questioned on this issue, he lodged a complaint against the villagers on the file of Nandigam Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.86 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Thereupon, bringing all these facts to the notice of respondents 2 and 3 and requesting them to take appropriate action in the matter, it has submitted representations dated 28.07.2008 and 31.07.2008, but no action is taken till date. Hence, it filed the present writ petition, seeking appropriate directions as stated supra. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, admitting the grant of patta in favuor of the 6th respondent, in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.25 cents in Sy.No.55/10 Part of Kamadhenuvu Village and denying the allegations that the 6th respondent has taken up digging activity in the said land affecting the inflow and outflow of water in the subject tank. It is stated that the 6th respondent submitted a representation stating that the villagers of Haridasupuram are trying to encroach into her land in order to extend the bund of Haridasupuram tank, and on the other hand, the petitioner association also submitted representations to respondents 2 and 3. Thereupon, respondents 3 and 4 inspected the disputed land and found that no encroachments were made by the 6th respondent, but it is the petitioner, who encroached into part of the assigned land of the 6th respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner was directed to remove those encroachments and when the petitioner failed to comply with that direction, the 4th respondent lodged complaint before the police on 29.07.2008. It is further stated that in view of the pendency of the present writ petition, no further action for removal of the encroachments made by the petitioner could be taken. It is also categorically stated that the land assigned in favour of the 6th respondent, though classified as grazing land, is dry land on ground and that the assignment committee has given approval on 23.11.2007 for assignment of the same in favour of the 6th respondent for the purpose of cultivation, and that the water of tank will not flow through assigned land and as such no loss will be sustained either to the ayacutdars or to members of the petitioner association. It is also stated that the petitioner has not chosen to file an appeal before the appropriate authority seeking cancellation of patta granted in favour of 6th respondent. The 6th respondent also filed counter-affidavit, denying the allegations made by the petitioner, and it is stated that, on her application, the land in question was assigned to her, after conducting detailed enquiry, and the then Tahsildar delivered physical possession of the land to her on 07.11.2007 and consequently pattadar passbook and title deed were also issued in her favour. The allegation that the land assigned in her favour is a tank poramboke used as grazing land is denied and it is stated that she raised agricultural crops in the said land and when some private persons tried to grab her land and interfered with her possession of the same, police registered a case and initiated prosecution, and only with a view to save the offenders, the present writ petition is filed. She, however, expressed no objection for disposal of the writ petition with directions to respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, after conducting due enquiry as per law, duly giving notice to her. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the case of the petitioner and he mainly contended that as per A.P. Board Standing Orders, assignment of poramboke grazing land is prohibited and therefore the authorities erred in assigning the land in question, which is grazing land and tank poramboke and situated on tank-bed, in favour of the 6th respondent. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submits that, after due enquiry, the 6th respondent was granted patta for the land in question, which is dry land on ground, and in fact, it is the petitioner who made encroachments into her land. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent also supported grant of patta in favour of the 6th respondent and submitted that the petitioner made attempts to grab the land in question assigned in favour of the 6th respondent and, having failed in its attempts, filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent and perused the record. The petitioner questions the assignment of land in question in favour of the 6th respondent and it contends that the said land is tank poramboke and classified as grazing land, the assignment of which is prohibited as per A.P. Board Standing Orders. Though the respondent authorities admit that the land is government poramboke land classified as grazing land and contends that it is dry land on ground and was assigned to the 6th respondent for the purpose of cultivation, only after due enquiry, the fact remains it is the case of the petitioner that assignment of poramboke grazing land is prohibited as per the A.P. Board Standing Orders. Thus, the validity or otherwise of the assignment made in favour of the 6th respondent is in dispute. This apart, it is the contention of the petitioner that the 6th respondent is converting the assigned land into dry land and the activities taken up by her would affect the inflow and outflow of water in the tank. Thus, it appears the interests of the villagers and ayacutdars are involved in the matter. It is also the case of the petitioner that at the instance of the 4th respondent, criminal action was initiated against the villagers, and in this regard there is no plausible explanation from the respondent authorities, except stating that the petitioner itself made encroachments into the land assigned to the 6th respondent and since it failed to comply with the direction for removal of those encroachment, complaint was lodged before the police. If really the petitioner made encroachments and did not remove the same in spite of directions by him, the 4th respondent ought to have followed due process of law in removal of those encroachments under the relevant Act, but without doing so, he filed a criminal complaint, and it is not known why he had adopted such arm-twisting method. Since the validity of the assignment of land in question in favour of the 6th respondent is in dispute and the interests of the ayacutdars and villagers of the village are said to be affected by such assignment, which the petitioner contends is prohibited by the A.P. Board Standing Orders, I deem it appropriate to direct respondents 2 and 3 to enquire into the matter in detail and resolve the dispute. Accordingly, respondents 2 and 3 are directed to conduct a detailed enquiry as to whether the assignment of the land in question in favour of the 6th respondent is proper and valid in the eye of law and if so whether the 6th respondent is using the said land in any manner, affecting the inflow and outflow of water in the subject tank, and pass appropriate orders and take necessary action in accordance therewith, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 28th July, 2010 IBL