THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24317 of 2003 Date: 21.11.2011 Between: Mabbu Bheemaiah … Petitioner And The Collector, Karimnagar District and 3 others. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24317 of 2003 O R D E R : The petitioner herein claims title and possession in respect of Ac.5.02 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.317 of Veeralapally Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. It is stated that he has been raising paddy crops in the said land by drawing water from the well dug in his lands. It is pleaded that on the western side of the lands in question, there is a railway track, which is constructed for transporting coal from Singareni Collaries to NTPC Power plant situated at Ramagundam. The Railway track is at the height of 25 to 30 feet and there is a drain underneath the railway bridge which passess through the lands of the petitioner. On the Western side of the railway track, there is road parallel to the railway track, which leads from Godavarikhani to Penchikerla village. It is alleged that Singareni Collaries had erected filter beds besides the said road leading from Godavarikhani village to Penchikerla village for servicing and cleaning the dumpers and heavy vehicles belonging to it and that the waste water polluted with oil contents is flushed through the drain every day. That apart, as the railway track is at a height of 25 to 30 feet, there is a continuous stagnation of water and the petitioner’s lands are being submerged for almost 7 to 8 months in a year. In addition to oil contents and filth, the water in the drain was also polluted with charcoal waste let out by the 4th respondent-the National Thermal Power Corporation. Because of the large composition of oil in waste water drained through filter bed of the 3rd respondent and the drainage water coming out from Veerlapally village, it is alleged that the petitioner’s lands have become unfit for cultivation and they lost its fertility. Alleging that the respondents 3 and 4 are responsible for the stagnation of water, which resulted in loss of the fertility of the petitioner’s lands, the petitioner made various complaints to the statutory authorities requesting to take necessary steps. The latest such representation was on 13.11.2003. Alleging that the respondents failed to take any action, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in depriving the petitioner the enjoyment of his lands is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also seeks a consequential direction to acquire his lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents 3 and 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of 3rd respondent, all the allegations made by the petitioner are denied and it is stated that there is no drain passing underneath the railway track as contended by the petitioner. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent had constructed a plant to clear the water coming from the washing platform, wherein oil and grease contents are filtered and the cleaned water is recycled and used for industrial purposes of the 3rd respondent. It is also stated that the lands belonging to the petitioner are at a higher level when compared to the drain and as such, the allegation that the petitioner’ lands are being inundated is absolutely false and without any basis. It is also specifically pleaded that the petitioner has no difficulty for cultivation of his lands and there has been no interference by the 3rd respondent at any point of time. The 4th respondent in its counter affidavit explained that it has acquired Ac.38.17 gunats of land in Maredpaka Village of Ramagundam Mandal for the purpose of laying the railway track, which is required for transportation of coal from the 3rd respondent. Except transportation of coal, no other activity is carried on by the 4th respondent in the said area. The allegation that the 4th respondent has been polluting the water by laying out charcoal waste has been denied and it is stated that the power plant of the 4th respondent company is situated in Ramagundam and it is located far away from the land of the petitioner. The unloading of the coal is also carried out in the plant premises and the 4th respondent is not using any type of washeries in the vicinity of the Veeralapally/Maredpaka Village. Thus, it is pleaded that the 4th respondent has not caused any loss to the petitioner much less contributing by paying any act directly or indirectly to diminish the utility of the land. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen, the petitioner’s allegation that his lands have become infertile due to the activities of the respondents 3 and 4 has been specifically denied by both the respondents. No reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner contradicting the stand taken by the respondents 3 and 4. At any rate, the matter involves various disputed questions of fact, which cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court on the basis of mere affidavits. Hence, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to avail the appropriate common law remedy for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 21.11.2011 KLP