IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20144 OF 2002 Dt.28.1.2010 Between: S. Rangaiah and others … Petitioners And The District Collector Chittoor District, Chittoor and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.3: A.G.P. for Irrigation THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20144 OF 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in constructing a weir on the southern side of Vellampadu Small Tank of Vellampadu Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal. The petitioners who claimed to be ayacutdars of Vellampadu Small Tank felt aggrieved by the proposed construction of a weir. According to them, the Irrigation Department, for the first time, proposed to construct the weir. The petitioners pleaded that if such a weir is constructed, the surplus water will flow into their lands leading to their inundation. They further stated that the excess water of the tank since a long time has been passing through a channel on the eastern end of the tank bund and that instead of constructing a weir at that place, the Irrigation Department proposed to construct a weir at the place in question. This Court while admitting the Writ Petition granted interim direction on 10.10.2002 to respondent No.3 to verify the records relating to the tank in question and that if it is found that the weir did not exist where the work is undertaken, no further construction shall be undertaken and, on the other hand, if it emerges that the weir exists in that place, the work shall go on. In the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Srikalahasti, respondent No.3, it is inter alia pleaded that the Field Map Book (FMB) of 1958 pertaining to Vellampadu Tank shows the existence of surplus course of the tank through which excess water flows and that the surplus course extends from S.Nos.163 to 186 and 213 as per the FMB. It is further stated that the District Collector accorded administrative approval for restoration of the damaged surplus weir by sanctioning Rs.5,00,000/- vide his proceedings, dt.--.4.2002, under Neeru-Meeru programme and that the President of the Water Users Association had also represented for restoration of the damaged weir vide his letter dt.24.5.2002. Respondent No.3 denied the averment that if the weir at the place in question is constructed it will result in inundation of the private lands, including that of the petitioners. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the above mentioned averments contained in the counter affidavit. At the hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the stand taken by the petitioners in the affidavit regarding the existence of the weir. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot decide the disputed question as to whether or not a weir originally existed. This question can be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction on the parties adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence. Though it is not specifically pleaded by the respondents, having regard to the nature of the interim order passed by this Court on 10.10.2002, presumably the work would have already been completed. Therefore, at this length of time, it is not possible for this Court to grant any relief to the petitioners. If the petitioners are still feeling aggrieved by the restoration of the weir, they shall be free to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for claiming appropriate relief. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28.1.2010 bnr