IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.13644 of 2009 Between: Tatineni Satyavathi. … Petitioner And: The Superintending of Engineer, Irrigation Department, Behind Civil Courts, Vijayawada, Krishna District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Y.Subrahmanyam. Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Irrigation. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in destroying/destructing/removing the New Nidamanuru Irrigation Canal, situated at Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. In her affidavit, the petitioner averred that Nidamanuru Irrigation Canal was excavated 100 years back and that the total length of the said canal is 6.286 Kms., which is emanating from Bandar canal and flows through Poranki village and ends with Gudavalli village, via., Nidamanuru and Done-Atukuru villages. She pleaded that she and her family members are having large extents of agricultural lands irrigated under the said canal; and that in order to convert the existing Donka, which leads to Chaitanya College road, into a road, respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.3- Contractor for destructing and removing the said New Nidamanuru Irrigation Canal. According to the petitioner, the respondents have no such authority to destroy the canal in order to form a road. The petitioner further pleaded hat she made representations dated 7-4-2009 and 24-6-2009 to respondent No.1 against the proposed conversion, but no action was taken by him. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Chairman of respondent No.2 it is, inter alia, stated that no action is initiated for removing/wiping out/destroying the New Nidamanuru channel; and that the said channel was originally formed to serve an ayakut of 720 acres covering Poranki, Kanuru, Nidamanuru and Done- Atukuru villages. It is further stated that due to urbanization, half of the ayacut lands have been converted into residential plots and the ayacut was reduced to 360 acres by 2002 itself as certified by the Irrigation Department in their note dated 10-1-2003; and that the Irrigation Department suggested to reduce the width of the channel. It is also averred that Donka road is in existence as per survey records connecting Bandar Road (NH9) and Eluru Road (NH.5) with a width varying from 30 feet to 80 feet; and that earlier when the surrounding lands were in agricultural use, a field channel was dug within the width of the existing Donka road along its Eastern edge. Respondent No.2 further stated that in view of the growing urban population, density of traffic and other problems, a need was felt to develop bye-pass roads to the city connecting N.H.5 going from Chennai to Kolkatta and N.H.9 from Hyderabad to Machilipatnam from different points to divert traffic between the roads from peripheral area/outskirts of the city; that, accordingly, 100 feet road was planned between NH.5 and NH.9 from Enikepadu to Tadigadapa Sulabhi with a length of nearly 4 K.Ms., at a cost of Rs.13.35 crores; that, as a part of the said programme, series of meetings were convened with the farmers and plot owners on either side of the Donka; and that they consented to part with their lands for development of the road. It is also stated that as a part of the road widening, the irrigation channel, which was dug within the Donka portion, is realigned wherever necessary without affecting the water flow pattern and the interests of the farmers, with the knowledge of the Irrigation Officials. It is stated that except realignment, the authorities of respondent No.2 are not taking any action for destroying/wiping out/closing the New Nidamanuru channel. He assured this Court that respondent No.2 would not take any action to destroy/wipe out/remove the channel. Respondent No.2 specifically averred that the petitioner’s lands, situated in RS No.37 of Poranki village, are not being irrigated by New Nidamanuru channel and that the said lands are classified as dry lands as per the revenue records and located far from the New Nidamanuru channel. Along with the counter-affidavit, respondent No.2 filed material papers, which include the record pertaining to Water Users’ Association of Poranki village, which shows that the lands in Survey No.37 of Poranki village are included in the ayacut of Poranki West side Channel. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has not filed proper material to show that her lands are included in the ayacut of the New Nidamanuru channel, if an opportunity is given to her, she will present the evidence before respondent No.1 in support of her plea. In the Writ Petition, two questions arise for consideration, viz., (1) whether the petitioner has locus to file this Writ Petition? and (2) whether the respondents can reduce the width of the channel? As regards the first issue, as conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no record, which reveals that the petitioner’s lands are officially irrigated through the new Nidamanuru channel. As noted above, the record of the Water Users’ Association, produced by respondent No.2, shows that the petitioner’s lands are registered under the Poranki west side channel. Therefore, in strict sense, the petitioner cannot have any grievance if a road is sought to be laid by reducing the width of the canal. But the issue requires to be examined from the point of view of larger public interest. Water bodies are precious, more so, when lands are irrigated through such water bodies. Therefore, the State and its officers should endeavour to protect the existing water bodies, including the irrigation channels, by placing them uppermost in the list of priorities. While easing traffic is certainly in public interest, protecting the existing irrigation channels is much more important. As already noted above, respondent No.2 has assured that the New Nidamanuru Irrigation Channel will not be destroyed/wiped out/removed. There is nothing on record to show that before undertaking the work of widening the Donka, respondent No.2 has taken the approval of the Irrigation Department. Respondent No.2 merely relied on the purported note of the Executive Engineer, wherein he opined that to cater to the present needs of the ayacut, the section of the channel can be reduced to 1.5 meters bed width x 0.60 meters or in the alternative to reduce the section by providing concrete trough of 1.00 meter x 1.65 meters and he recommended that one of the two alternatives may be decided so as to address the Government to delineate the canal for the road purpose of respondent No.2. The Superintending Engineer, through his letter, dated 10-1-2003, addressed to the Chairman of respondent No.2, stated that the proposals of trough with cement concrete were enclosed along with the note and sketch; and that the said proposals were not finalized by respondent No.2 for approval of the Irrigation Department. In my view, without the approval of the Irrigation Department, respondent No.2 cannot proceed with the road work, which is likely to reduce the width of the New Nidamanuru channel and affect the interests of hundreds of ayacutdars, if not the petitioner. Before undertaking such work, respondent No.2, being the statutory body, is required to obtain necessary permissions and sanctions from the competent authority of the Irrigation Department. Therefore, till such time as respondent No.2 obtains proper sanctions and approvals from the competent authority, it cannot proceed with the execution of the proposed road work affecting the channel. It is, however, made clear that if respondent No.2 choose to execute the road work without affecting the channel, it shall be free to do so. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:23 -7-2009 MNR