THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.738 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of land in Survey No.1216 of Putluru Village and Mandal, Anantapur District. The land immediately adjacent to it is the one in Survey No.1217/A, owned by respondent No.4. The petitioner submits that his land alone was in the ayacut of High Level Canal (H.L.C.) and due to political influence, the land belonging to respondent No.4 was also brought under ayacut and that attempts are being made to dig a canal across the land in Survey No.1216. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents not to dig the canal across the land of the petitioner without acquiring the affected portion of the land. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioner ploughed away the irrigation canal that was passing through his land and thereby, prevented flow of water to the land of respondent No.4. According to respondent Nos.1 to 3, the attempt is only to restore the existing canal Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner has dismantled the canal and thereby, prevented flow of water to his land. Heard Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri C.Kodandaram, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The lands of the petitioner and respondent No.4 are in the ayacut of H.L.C. It appears that there was inconsistency in the records. Over a period of time, the canal that was passing through the land of the petitioner disappeared and naturally respondent No.4 felt aggrieved. The matter reached the Joint Collector and the Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur, respondent No.1 herein. He, in turn, called for report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Putluru Mandal, respondent No.2 herein, and the Deputy Executive Engineer, Tadipatri, respondent No.3 herein. A spot inspection was conducted by those two officials on 08.02.2002. In their report, respondent Nos.2 and 3 state that the petitioner has ploughed away the canal that was passing through the land. After considering all these aspects in detail, respondent No.1 passed order, dated 12.12.2002, directing that the land of respondent No.4 in Survey No.1217/A shall be brought under the ayacut. This naturally needs the restoration of the canal that was existing. The order passed by respondent No.1 has become final. The petitioner emphatically denies the existence of any canal upon his land at all. When the authorities of the Irrigation and the Revenue Departments have categorically stated that an irrigation canal passes through the land of the petitioner and that he damaged it by ploughing, this Court ignores those facts. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 consistently state that the attempt now is only to restore the canal, which was already existing. The grievance of the petitioner that in the event of the canal being restored, his land would be inundated since the land of respondent No.4 is in higher level, can be taken care of by directing that the authorities of the Irrigation Department shall take adequate care to ensure that the canal does not lead to inundation of the land of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that it shall be open to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to restore the canal which passes through the land in Survey No.1216 in such way that the land of the petitioner does not get inundated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 01.04.2010. kdl