THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 10021 of 2010 Date: 05.07.2010 Between: Suggisetti Naga Venkata Satyanarayana and 4 others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Eluru Municipal Corporation, Rep. By its Commissioner, Eluru, West Godavari District and 4 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 10021 OF 2010 O R D E R : The petitioners claim to be the owners of different extents of agricultural lands situated in R.S.Nos.82 and 83 of Malkapuram village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. It is stated that they used to cultivate the said lands by drawing water from Godavari Canal through a low level supply channel. While so, certain lands situated in the northern side of the lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired for the purpose of construction of a drinking water tank for Eluru town in the year 2009 and the possession was handed over to the Eluru Municipal Corporation. It is alleged that during the construction of the said water tank by the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation the irrigation water supply channel as well as the pathway and drainage canal connected to the lands of the petitioners were damaged. When the petitioners raised protest, the 1st respondent ensured to provide alternative supply channel, pathway and drainage canal. However, the 1st respondent failed to do so and consequently, the petitioners are left with no source of water supply to their lands. Similarly there was no pathway and no source of drainage facility to their lands. It is pleaded that after the construction of the drinking water tank, the lands of the petitioners had been completely segregated and they were unable to cultivate their lands for the past two crop seasons. Though the petitioners made several representations as the respondents-authorities failed to respond, the petitioners got issued a legal notice dated 02.04.2010 calling upon the 1st respondent to restore the irrigation channel, pathway and drainage canal to their lands. However, no steps have been taken by the respondents so far. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not restoring the irrigation supply channel, pathway and drainage canal to the lands of the petitioners situated in R.S.Nos.82 and 83 of Malkapuram village, as arbitrary and illegal. On behalf of the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation, Eluru, the Commissioner filed a counter affidavit denying the allegation that the irrigation water supply channel, pathway and drainage canal to the lands of the petitioners were destroyed while constructing the drinking water tank. It is also stated that the site acquired for the purpose of construction of the water tank was handed over to the working agency in the month of January, 2010 and at that time there were no crops in the fields and therefore, the question of causing damage to the crops did not arise. It is further stated that some of the field channels, which were disturbed were already restored and so far as the channel pertaining to R.S.Nos.82 and 83 which was partly disturbed, alternative field channels were proposed to supply irrigation water for fields in R.S.Nos.82 and 83. Heard both sides. It is apparent from the pleadings narrated above that certain lands adjacent to the lands of the petitioners were acquired for the purpose of construction of a water tank. The possession of the said land was handed over to the Corporation and in turn the work was allotted to an agency for construction of the tank. The counter affidavit filed by the Corporation shows that some of the channels leading to R.S.Nos.82 and 83 were partly damaged during the process of construction of the said tank and steps were being taken for restoration. In the light of the said admission in the counter affidavit, in case the channels leading to the lands of the petitioners were also damaged, the petitioners are justified in seeking restoration and the respondents are bound to consider the claims of the petitioners. However it is not clear from the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent whether the channels so damaged included the channels connected to the lands of the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the respondents 3 to 5 to conduct inspection of the lands in question in the presence of the petitioners as well as the concerned officials of the 1st respondent corporation and submit a report to the 2nd respondent - District Collector as to the factual position with a specific finding whether the irrigation supply channel, pathway and drainage canal connected to the lands of the petitioners were damaged during the process of the construction of the water tank as claimed by the petitioners. Such report shall be submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On the basis of the said report the 2nd respondent shall take necessary action in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ​ ____________ Date: 05.07.2010 G. ROHINI, J Note: Issue CC of order in one week (B/o) Ivd