THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23191 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the exclusive owners of Ac.33.07 cents of land in Sys.No.65 and 66/1 of Vemavaram Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District. The land is in the form of a tank. According to them, their ancestors have dug a small storage canal encircling the land at the depth of 6 feet, and width of 20 feet, and through the water stored, thus, the land was being irrigated. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the order dated 10-06-2008 passed by the District Collector, Krishna, the 1st respondent herein. Through the said order, the 1st respondent declared the land, referred to above, as a public irrigation tank, and directed removal of unauthorized constructions and obstructions made therein. A further direction was issued to maintain the Hydraulic particulars of the tank, as per the specifications. The petitioners contend that the impugned order was passed without notice to them, and that it has the effect of invading their rights. The respondents 5 to 8 filed a counter-affidavit, disputing the assertion of the petitioners. It is stated that the petitioners do not have any right, title or interest over the land, and thereby, they do not have locus standi to challenge the impugned order. It is pointed out that the land claimed by the petitioners is an irrigation tank, and a source of irrigation for about 136 acres, for the past more than one century, and certain unauthorised and illegal activities are prevented through the impugned order. Heard Sri V. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, and Smt.M.Devineni Radha Rani learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8. The impugned order was passed as a sequel to an earlier round of litigation. Respondents 5 to 8 filed W.P.No.1336 of 2007 against the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Command Area Development, Vijayawada, and the 4th respondent herein, alleging that their right to draw water from the tank in question was being interfered with. It was also alleged that the 4th respondent herein occupied the tank-bed and hoodwinked the ryots from drawing water from the tank. The writ petition was disposed of on 30-08-2007, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the District Collector, the 1st respondent herein, and to file a representation. The 1st respondent, in turn, was directed to issue notices to the concerned parties; call for the record, and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the 1st respondent. Not only the records made available by the parties, but also those, in the Regional Achieves Department, Acharya Nagarjuna, University were procured. Local inspection was caused by the Revenue and Irrigation Authorities. Ultimately a finding was recorded to the effect that there existed a tank in the land in Sy.Nos.65 and 66/1 admeasuring Ac.33.07 cents, and it was a source of irrigation for Acs.139.30 cents, since 1867. It was mentioned that Budameru Stream was the feeder channel to the tank. The 1st respondent further pointed out that though it was a private tank, it was a source of irrigation for the ayacut under it. After referring to the Government orders and relevant provisions of law, the 1st respondent took the view that the registered pattadars cannot form inner bunds, adversely effecting and damaging the irrigation system. In a way, it can be said that the 1st respondent has taken lot of pains in examining the matter and has undertaken a perfect and objective exercise, in her attempt to resolve the controversy. Very rarely one comes across such a dispassionate and effective disposal of the matter, that too, which is not referable to any particular statute. This Court would have appreciated the various contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, had they possessed any subsisting rights, vis-à-vis the land. The allegation of the respondents 5 to 8, that the petitioners do not have any valid and subsisting title over the land, remains unrebutted. Though it is urged that the pattadar pass books were issued in favour of respondents 3 and 4, on account of fraud and misrepresentation, this is not the forum to adjudicate such disputed questions of fact. As long as the petitioners do not have any subsisting right over the land, their principal contention, that the impugned order was passed without notice to them, cannot be accepted. It is only when the petitioners establish their rights, vis-à-vis the land, in accordance with law, that they can ventilate their grievance, against the impugned proceedings. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, left open to the petitioners to work out their remedies against the respondents 5 to 8, and, in case they are successful in their efforts, it shall be open to them to assail the impugned order. In such an event, no observation made herein shall be treated as final on any aspect. It is made clear that, till the impugned order is set aside by any competent Court, it shall constitute the basis for enjoyment of the rights, by the concerned parties. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-04-2009. KO