THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.19448 of 2009 Dated 28th July, 2011 Between: Water Users Association, Gundemadakala Tank …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Irrigation & CAD Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6: Sri R.M.Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not considering the petitioner’s case before deciding to form a new tank across Kaveri vagu and Karnala vagu near Yerukollu Village, Duttalur Mandal, Sri Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for setting aside proceedings in Endt.No.DB/JTO3/Kaveri & Karnala vagu/ 121M, dated 29.01.2009, of respondent No.3. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents not to proceed with the formation of the above-mentioned new tank. The petitioner is the Water Users Association of Gundemadakala Tank. The ayacut of Gundemadakala tank comprises Acs.1391.00 as declared in the official gazette, with respect to which, there is no dispute. On the representation of the farmers of Yerukollu Village, construction of a new project was proposed on the up stream of Gundemadakala at the confluence of Kaveri vagu and Karnala vagu. The said proposal was questioned by the petitioner in W.P.No.23805 of 2008, which was finally disposed of by this Court by order, dated 03.11.2008, with the direction to the respondents to consider the objections of the petitioner-Association. Accordingly, two meetings were held by the Irrigation Officials on 21.12.2008 and 17.01.2009, following which, a decision was taken by respondent No.3 to go ahead with the proposed project by rejecting the petitioner’s objections. This decision is challenged in this writ petition. At the hearing, Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the project report on the basis of which assessment of availability of water was made did not take into consideration the water requirement of Gandlaveedu Tank. He further submitted that under the project report, after calculating the availability of water at Acs.5.00 per 1 Mcft, the balance available water was shown as 213 Mcft, whereas having regard to the admitted ayacut of Acs.1391.00 for Gandlaveedu Tank, water requirement is 271 Mcft and that therefore there is a huge short fall in the availability of water in the event the proposed new project is constructed. The learned counsel further submitted that the statement filed by the respondents in the Court has revised the duty to Acs.7.00 per 1 Mcft, which is contrary to the norm adopted in the project report and also in the impugned order. The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD submitted that even though the norm originally adopted was Acs.5.00 per 1 Mcft, the said norm was revised even prior to preparation of the project report and that according to the revised norms, Acs.7.00 per 1 Mcft is being taken as the duty. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that on a proper calculation of the assessment of all the tanks, including Gandlaveedu Tank, the total water yield available is 565.82 Mcft, as against which, the water requirement for all the tanks put together, excluding Gandlaveedu and proposed new tank, is 264.39 Mcft and that while Gandlaveedu requires 198.86 Mcft, still there will be surplus of 102.57 Mcft. He has also submitted that the Gandlaveedu tank has its own catchment and that the surplus water from the upper reach only supplements supply of water to the said tank. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the additional counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, wherein at paragraph-4, it is stated as under: “It is respectfully submitted that the catchment area of Kaveri Karnala Vagu near Yerukollu Village is 8.44 sq.miles or 21.86 sq.kms and the total available yield is 98.115 mcft out of which only 18.5 mcft is proposed for utilisation for the formation of new tank leaving the balance for the lower riparian rights. The catchment area of Gundamadakala Tank (down stream of proposed new tank) is 23.44 sq.miles or 60.71 sq.kms for which available yield is 281.95 mcft duly considering the upper and lower riparian rights including formation of new tank the balance available yield is 92.58 mcft. Gandlaveedu Tank is situated at the down stream of Gundamadakala Tank. The Tank is having self catchment area of 30.32 sq.miles or 77.62 sq.kms and the yield available in the catchment area 319.11 mcft is sufficient for the registered Ayacut approximately 1400 Acres adopting the duly 7 Acres/mcft and the balance yield available beyond Gandlaveedu Tank is 119 mcft. The balance yield is available down stream of Gundamadakala Tank is in Kaveri Karnala Basis will only supplement the Gandlaveedu Tank Ayacut. But the Gandlaveedu tank will not depend on the Kaveri – Karnala basin water as it has a self catchment area as stated above.” (Emphasis added) The learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously disputed the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and contended that the respondents have been varying the figures from time to time to suite their convenience and that the construction of proposed project if materialised would harm the interests of the ayacutdars of Gandlaveedu Tank. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is not possible for this Court to substitute its opinion over the experts in the field. Even though initially the project report did not consider the requirement of Gandlaveedu Tank, on a fresh consideration of the representations of the petitioner and the assessment water requirement, the Irrigation Officials have come to the definite conclusion that there will be surplus water even after meeting the requirements of ayacutdars of Gandlaveedu Tank. They have also found that Gandlaveedu tank has its own separate ayacut, which finding is not controverted by the petitioner. While this Court finds no reason to doubt the correctness of the above stand of the respondents at any rate, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this Court to examine the opinion of the experts as if it is sitting in an appeal over such opinions. Therefore, I do not find that this is a fit case for interference by this Court. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 14.09.2009, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.25393 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.4037 of 2009 and 292 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th July, 2011 VGB