IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 11593 of 2001 Between: 1 Kalyana Daleppadu, S/o. Late K.Naidamma, Embaram Village, Lakshminarasupeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. 2 Vellamala Kameswra Rao, S/o. Late V.Simhadri, Embaram Village, Lakshminarasupeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. 3 Vellamala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late V.Simhadri. Embaram Village, Lakshminarasupeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. 4 Vena Appanna, S/o. Late V.Yerraiah, Embaram Village, Lakshminarasupeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. 5 Kalyana Venkatappadu, S/o. Late Ramayya, Embaram Village, Lakshminarasupeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andrha Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, Srikakulam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Lakshminarasupeta, Srikakulam. 4 The Superintending Engineer, (Irrigation), Srikakulam. 5 The Executive Engineer, Srikakulam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not restoring the surplus weir of "Pinnama Naidu Cheruvu" to its original height, situate in Kovalam Revenue Village, Lakshminarasupeta Mandal, Srikakulam District and removing the earthern bund that was unauthorisedly constructed between the Northern end of the surplus weir of pinnama Naidu Cheruvu and Bothada Singhi Lakshminarasupeta Road, as illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 300- A of the Constitution of India and further directing the respondents restore the surplus weir of Pinnama Naidu Cheruvu to its original heights and remove the earthern bund unauthorisedly put up between the Northern end of surplus weir of pinnama Naidu Cheruvu and Bothada Singh Village - Lakshminarasupeta road, directing them to pay compensation for the loss of crop from the year 1999-2000 and till now. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.V.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No.11593 of 2001 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to restore the surplus weir of Pinnama Naidu Cheruvu to its original height, to remove the earthen bund constructed unauthorisedly between the Northern end of the surplus weir of Pinnama Naidu Cheruvu and Bothada Singhi Lakshminarasupeta road and also to direct the respondents to compensate the petitioners for the loss of crop from 1999-2000 till date. The case of the petitioners, in short, is that they are agriculturists from Embaram Village, that to the north of Bothada Singhi Lakshminarasupeta road, there is a small irrigation tank called ‘Purtala Cheruvu’ and that, to the southern side of the petitioners’ agricultural lands, there is another irrigation tank called ‘Pinnama Naidu Cheruvu’. According to the petitioners, the said tank has two sluices – one on the southern side and the other on the north- eastern side; there is a surplus weir on the north-eastern side, Pinnama Naidu Cheruvu receives rain water through a regular channel and water from Vamsadhara right canal, this is the source of irrigation for the lands situated in the south and eastern sides, the ryots of Kovalam village who own lands under the ayacut of Pinnama Naidu Cheruvu had increased the height of surplus weir to conserve more water to cater to their irrigation needs and had also put up a bund between Pothada Singhi Lakshminarasupeta road and the northern side of the surplus weir to prevent over flow of water from Pinnama Naidu Cheruvu and that these unauthorised acts had resulted in submergence of the petitioners’ lands, resulting in their inability to raise crops. The petitioners would contend that their representations were in vain and, while a temporary relief of compensation of Rs.400/- per acre was granted for the year 1998-1999, they were not compensated thereafter. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. The fifth respondent, in his counter affidavit, would state that some of the ryots of Kovalam village had increased the height of the weir to enhance the capacity of the tank, that they had also constructed a cross bund in their lands, based on the representation submitted by the petitioners, officials of the Revenue and Irrigation Department had inspected the site and had restored the surplus weir to its original height, that they were unable to interfere with regards the cross bund as it was constructed in a private land, that the remedy, if any, for the petitioners was to file a civil suit against the ryots of Kovalam including persons who had raised the cross bund and that the Government had no authority to interfere. Sri P.V.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would dispute the averment that the height of the surplus weir has been reduced to its original height. While admitting that it was restored in part, he would, however, state that it was not fully restored. The grievance of the petitioners does appear to be genuine. However, in the absence of the persons, who had erected the cross bund, being arrayed as respondents, it would be inappropriate for this Court to adjudicate upon this grievance. Even otherwise, the dispute raised in this writ petition is better left for adjudication by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to submit a representation to the officials concerned, in case they seek further reduction in the height of the surplus weir and, if any such representation is submitted, the respondents shall examine the matter and take appropriate action thereafter. The petitioners are also at liberty to avail such other remedies as are available to them in law. However, no relief can be granted in this writ petition. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________________ Ramesh Ranganathan, J Dt.19.03.2009 VGB