IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 18609 of 2003 Between: Gorle Linga Reddy, S/o. Narayanappa R/o. 43, Udegolam(Village), Kanakal (Mandal) Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Anantapur. 2 The Superintending Engineer High Level Channel Circle, Anantapur. 3 The Executive Engineer for Localisation High Level Channel, H.L.C. Colony, Anantapur. 4 The Deputy Executive Engineer H.L.C. Localisation, Kanekal, Anantapur District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to shift or destroy the existing 5L field channel in distributory channel No.7 to S.No.205-6 High Level Channel, Kanekal(Mandal), 43 Dhovolam (Village) Anantapur District. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Y.VENKAT SASTRY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation & Common Area Development appearing for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he owns an extent of Ac.20.00 of wet land in Sy.No.205-A of No.43, Udegolam village, Kanekal mandal, Anantapur District and the said land is situated to the west of the distributory of High Level Channel. There is a super passage across the 7th distributory abutting the land of the petitioner. Petitioner has constructed small house with three rooms and thrashing floor in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents near the passage along with the West of the 7th distributory channel in the eastern portion of his land. The said three rooms of the house are existing since twenty two years and there is a field channel 5L of the distributory No.7 which is functioning well serving the ayacutdars without any interruption and there is an adequate flow of water to all the fields localized under 5L of the 7th distributory. While so, notice, dated 25-08-2003, was issued by the Mandal Surveyor, Kanekal calling upon the petitioner to present himself before him on 26-08-2003 along with the relevant records showing his right, title with regard to the land in Sy.No.205-A HLC which is a poramboke land of No.43, Udegolam village. Questioning the said notice, this Writ Petition has been filed not to shift the present 5L field channel of distributory No.7 to survey No.205-A on the ground that the existing channel is serving them and if the channel is shifted the lands of the petitioner will become useless and redundant and therefore, there cannot be any justification in shifting the channel of 5L to Sy.No.205. 3. Counter has been filed stating that the ayacutdars of 5L field channel of No.7 distributory made a representation stating that they are not getting sufficient water from the existing field channel and that they are facing much difficulty while raising crops in their fields and requested to provide a field channel at a higher elevation so as to supply adequate water to their fields. In that connection, the site was inspected and the existing levels were taken, and after thorough verification the proposals for shifting of the 5L FC from KM 3/820 to 3/500 to No.7 distributory and for excavation of the field channel were approved for better commandability of the ayacut under the 5L field channel, and in that regard the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanekal was addressed a letter No.78th, dated 31-07-2003, by the Assistant Executive Engineer, H.L.C. (LOC) Section, Kanekal for deputing a Surveyor to identify the department’s land in Sy.No.205 which had been acquired by the department for No.7 distributory for the purpose of excavation of the alternative alignment as requested by the down stream ayacutdars who are not getting sufficient water through the existing 5L field channel. It is stated that the land of the petitioner is higher than the bed level of the proposed 5L field channel, and as such there is no question of seepage of any salinity affecting the petitioner’s land. It is further stated that the existing super passage will remain untouched even after the alternative alignment of the 5L FC is excavated. By the shifting of the 5L FC no extra water will be drawn and no extra ayacut is included under the No.7 distributory. It is further stated that pursuant to the said notice, dated 31-07-2003, issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer petitioner issued a legal notice through the advocate requesting not to shift the said 5L FC on the ground that his house will be affected. It is stated that in the survey conducted by the Mandal Surveyor on 27-08-2003 the land in Sy.No.205 was found as an acquired land for the distributory and it was also further revealed that the petitioner has encroached upon the Government land. Thus it is the case of the department that Sy.No.205 is the Government land. 4. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the Sy.No.205-A but not 205. If there is no dispute with regard to the right of the Government in respect of the land in Sy.No.205 which was acquired for the purpose of distributory channel and if the said land is situated at not in a higher place the question of getting seepage and the lands getting affected does not arise. As the petitioner encroached upon the said land, and not filed any reply to the said counter it cannot be said that the petitioner was an affected or interested person in excavating the channel from the acquired land in Sy.No.205. It is stated that proposals have been sent for shifting 5L field channel to ensure that all the lands get the water and after getting the proposals action will be taken for closing the existing field channel for construction. It is not the case of the petitioner that if a new channel is dug he will not get any water for the new channel. There is no grievance for the petitioner in not getting water but his grievance is that his land is in low level and there will be a seepage. It is only an apprehension and the lands will not get redundant. It is stated that the existing channel is also functioning and the new proposed channel will cater the needs of the lands which were also under the ayacutdars of the 7th distributory. Therefore, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary or against the principles of natural justice and that the petitioner’s right is affected in any manner. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not see any merits in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 10th March, 2008 Tsy