The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.2009 of 2010 Date: 11.10.2011 Between: Karasala Prasad Rao and 9 others ..... Petitioners AND 1.The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ongole, Prakasam District and 4 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri T.Rajendra Prasad for Sri T.Sreedhar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Irrigation & CAD Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioners are ayacutdars of Chagollu big tank of Ulavapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. They feel aggrieved by letter, dated 24-12-2009, whereby respondent No.2- Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division, Kandukur, has requested respondent No.4- Tahsildar, Ulavapadu Mandal, to take necessary action to ensure that no obstruction is caused for excavation of field channel from sluice No.1 of Chagollu big tank to Chagollu small tank. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that the management of the two tanks in question viz., Chagollu big tank and Chagollu small tank is absolutely vested in the Water Users Association constituted under the A.P.Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997 (for short ‘the Act’), and that respondent No.2 has no power or authority to make a request such as the one contained in the impugned letter. This Court, vide interim order, dated 09-02-2010, has called for a report from respondent No.2 in order to find out the exact extent of lands cultivated under the Chagollu big and small tanks. Accordingly, a report, dated 24-02-2010, has been submitted wherein details of availability of water in both the tanks are furnished. Respondent No.2 has stated therein that the water available in Chagollu big tank is sufficient to sustain the crops raised under the ayacut of both the tanks and that 75% ayacut will be completed within 15 days and the balance 25% will be completed within 25 days. As regards the plea of the petitioners that respondent No.2 has no power to manage the tanks, a perusal of the impugned letter shows that, while recognizing that the ayacut of Ac.45-00 under Chagollu small tank is a joint ayacut of Chagollu big tank, respondent No.2 has merely requested respondent No.4 to see that the obstructions, being created in the excavation of field channel from sluice No.1 of Chagollu big tank to Chagollu small tank, are removed. In my opinion, no decision pertaining to the management of the tanks has been taken by respondent No.2. The request made in the impugned letter is confined only to facilitating excavation of field channel between the two tanks. Whether water from the Chagollu big tank shall be released for irrigating Ac.45-00 acres of ayacut under Chagollu small tank or not and if so, to what extent the water has to be released are all the matters, which fall within the realm of Management of those tanks, which is vested in the Water Users Association under Section 17 of the Act. If any dispute arises in respect of utilization of water of Chagollu big tank for irrigating ayacut of Chagollu small tank, the petitioners are entitled to raise a dispute under Section 17 (j) of the Act. In the light of the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference with the impugned letter. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by utilization of water of Chagollu big tank by the ayacutdars of Chagollu small tank, they shall be free to raise those disputes under Section 17 (j) of the Act. Subject to the liberty given as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.2675 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 11th October, 2011 LUR