IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 10384 OF 2002 BETWEEN: Sunkavalli Satyanarayana and Others …PETITIONERS AND The Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Polavaram Section, and others …RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 10384 OF 2002 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioners herein was with regard to the inaction of the respondents in controlling encroachments and alterations upon the drain bund of Kovvada canal in Karkondapadu village of West Godavari District. It was their case that the same would lead to inundation of agricultural lands abutting the bund. They accordingly sought a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chagallu, West Godavari District-third respondent, to take action in this regard pursuant to the letter dated 11-05-2002 addressed by the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Polavaram Section, West Godavari District-the first respondent. 2. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that upon the representation made by the Ryots of Markondapadu village with regard to the alleged encroachments on Kovvada canal, he undertook an inspection on 11-05-2002 leading to his communication of the same date to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chagallu. However, upon the letter addressed to him by the Village Sarpanch, Markondapadu village, the first respondent undertook a fresh inspection of the canal on 21-05-2002 and found that the canal width was 51 metres. As the existing width was more than the 45 metres required for carrying out development and widening of the canal, the Irrigation Department appears to have accorded sanction under proceedings dated 29-06- 2002, permitting the laying of a three metres width road on the right side of the canal subject to conditions. 3. In the light of these developments, it is clear that the earlier letter dated 11-05-2002 addressed by the first respondent to the third respondent no longer holds the field. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the permission granted under the proceedings dated 29-06-2002 for laying of the road, they would necessarily have to challenge it separately in accordance with law. No cause is made out for interference in this writ petition. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Date: 25-01-2011. _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J DSK/INL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 10384 OF 2002 January 25, 2011 DSK/INL