THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1830 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioner No.1 is a Welfare Association of residents of Ramalayam, Nallakunta, Hyderabad and petitioner Nos.2 to 17 are the members thereof. There used to be an irrigation tank, by name Nagamaiah Kunta. Its surplus water used to join the surplus water canal of Hussain Sagar near Fever Hospital. Over the period, not only that tank has become defunct, but constructions also came up in the ayacut as well as foreshore area. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) did not take adequate steps to ensure free flow of the water that was to accumulate in the tank. A Nala of 7 metre width exists up to vegetable market. However, from then onwards, the width of the Nala is only 3 metres. This naturally resulted in inundation of the colonies that came up within the erstwhile ayacut. Recently, the Corporation initiated steps for free flow of flood water. One alternative was to widen that piece of Nala, which is 3 metres width, to 7 metres. However, that option did not find favour, since the width of the road through which Nala passes itself is 6 metres. The demolition of the buildings and acquisition of the properties became inevitable. Another alternative was considered, according to which, Nala of 1.2 metres width, in the neighbouring lane is to be widened to 3.00 metres and an independent 3 metres wide Nala in the another neighbouring lane is to be constructed. These two newly proposed works were to be undertaken in two different lanes on either side of the lane through which the excess water from Nagamaiah Kunta used to flow. The petitioners submit that the second alternative was chosen at the instance of the local Corporator. According to them, not only there would not be any improvement in the flood situation, but also it would result in inconvenience to the local residents apart from huge cost for the Corporation. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the Corporation. It is stated that in the recent past, the area was frequently flooded and all possible alternatives for relieving the situation were examined. It is urged that whether one looks from the point of view of the cost or inconvenience to the local residents, the alternative chosen by them is most reasonable. The relevant record is also produced. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. The effort of the Corporation is to relieve the residents of the locality, from the flood situation. The past experience shows that almost all the houses were inundated to a substantial level on account of obstruction to the free flow of the rain water. It is no doubt true that the continuation of the Nala of 7 metres width till it joins Hussain Sagar excess water Nala would be the best alternative. However, widening of 3 metres Nala passing through dense residential locality to 7 metres width is by no means simple, nor it is advisable from the point of view of feasibility or economy. Substantial number of buildings are to be demolished. The alternative chosen by the respondents does not involve demolition of any structures, except the one, which is said to be at the threshold of the road. The residents would no doubt be put to some inconvenience during the execution of the work. However, that can be mitigated by making certain arrangements. Further, the record discloses that the matter was examined from various angles and the Chief Engineer has submitted a detailed note, considering all the alternatives. This Court cannot substitute its opinion, for the one given by the experts in the field. No mala fides are alleged against the respondents. Further, there is nothing to suggest that the respondents are in any way inclined to cause hardship or difficulty to the petitioner or to favour anyone in this regard. In case the petitioners have any alternative, they can suggest the same to the respondents and there is no reason to believe that the same would be not taken into account. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the respondents to proceed with the work as proposed. It is also directed that in case the petitioners suggest any alternative, the same shall be taken into account. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:09.03.2011 kdl