THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION Nos.20590 & 22308 OF 2004 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions filed with a common prayer challenging the alignment of a channel under Changalnadu Lift Irrigation Scheme are heard together and decided by this common order. The petitioners claim to be the owners of different extents of land situated in Sy.Nos.108/2 and 148 of Mukkinada village, Ranjanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. The lands belonging to the petitioners were sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of digging a channel under Changalnadu Lift Irrigation Scheme. The said action of the respondents is assailed in these writ petitions contending inter alia that the respondents ought to have changed the alignment of channel as suggested by the petitioners in their representations so that the petitioners would not have been deprived of their livelihood by carrying on mining and agricultural operations in the lands in question. The respondents filed counter-affidavits opposing the change of alignment sought by the petitioners. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. At the outset, it is to be noted that the dispute raised by the petitioners namely whether the alignment in question is not economically and technically viable is a question highly technical in nature. The detailed counter-affidavits filed by the respondents demonstrate that the said alignment was approved after consideration by the experts at different levels on several technical aspects. As held by the Apex Court in NARMADA BACHAVO ANDOLAN v. UNION OF INDIA[1] this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 will not transgress into the correctness of such issue and will not adjudicate what type of alignment would be economically and technically viable. The Courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on such issues. As observed in the above decision by the Supreme Court in respect of Public Projects and Policies, which are initiated by the Government and decisions are taken after due care and consideration, the Court should not become an approval authority. Even assuming that the alignment approved by the respondents causes prejudice to the petitioners, as held by the Supreme Court in the above decision, in a democracy welfare of the people at large and not merely of a small section of the society has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas, which are the functions of the Executive. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Writ of Mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted on any of the grounds raised by the petitioners. It is also relevant to note that following the above settled legal position, this Court dismissed W.P.Nos.17225 and 18734 of 2005 in which the alignment of the right main canal of Polavaram Project was assailed. Viewed from any angle, the contention of the petitioners that the respondents ought to have changed the alignment of the channel in question is without any substance and cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the writ petitions, which are devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed. No costs. 25.2.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.20590 of 2004 Between: Satti Laxmana Reddy, S/o.Soma Sundara Reddy, R/o.Rayavaram Village, Anaparthy Mandal, East Godavari Dist. .. Petitioner AND 1 The District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari Dist. 2 The Superintending Engineer, SI Division, Dhavaleswaram Irrigation & CAD (PW) Dept., East Godavari Dist. . ..Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to dig the alignment of the channel as per the representation dated 19-7-2004 submitted by the writ petition to the 1st Respondent herein for laying the channel of Chagalnadu Lift Irrigation Scheme by declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring the land belong to the petitioner, in which there is subsisting mining lease, without conducting any enquiry under section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.T. Niranjan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No: Govt. Pleader for Revenue (R1) Govt. Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development (R2) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22308 of 2004 Between: Satti Sadananda Reddy S/o Soma Sundara Reddy Rayavaram Village, Anaparthy Mandal, East Godavari District. ..Petitioner AND 1 The District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari District 2 The Superintending Engineer, SI Division, Dhavaleswaram Irrigation & CAD (PW) Department, East Godavari District ..Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the respondents to dig the alignment of the channel as per the sketch annexed to the representation dated 22- 7-2004 submitted by the Writ Petitioner to the 1st Respondent herein for laying the channel of Chagalnadu lift Irrigation Scheme by declaring the action of the Respondents in acquiring the land belong to the petitioner, without conducting any enquiry under Section 5 (A) of the Land Acquisition act, 1984 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.T.Niranjan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No: Govt. Pleader for Revenue (R1) Govt. Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development (R2) The Court made the following: [1] (2000) 10 SCC 664