KETHA SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent Nos.1,2 and 4 to 7, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 10, and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9.

(2.) This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in connecting the drainage canals to the irrigation channel pipeline No.1 lockbode situated on the eastern side of Nidadavole- Narsapur main irrigation canal upto the kaja drain, as illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that they are having small extents of agricultural lands in Poduru Village and Mandal and depending on the agriculture for their livelihood. Their agricultural lands are irrigated under pipeline No.1 which is called as lockbode. While so, the 9th respondent-Grampanchayat got constructed a drainage and the same was connected to pipeline No.1/lockbode which is meant for irrigation of notified ayacut of 111 acres. In view of the same, the crops of the petitioners are being damaged. Therefore, the petitioners submitted representations to the respondent authorities. Having vexed with the attitude of the respondent authorities in not taking action against the 9 th respondent, the petitioners filed W.P.No.9878 of 2014. At the time of hearing of the said writ petition, basing on the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation as well as the learned standing counsel for the 9th respondent that they are not carrying out any such activity as alleged by the petitioners, the writ petition was closed on 10/4/2014. Even after passing of the order dtd. 10/4/2014 in W.P.No.9878 of 2014, as the respondent authorities are allowing the 9th respondent to continue the drainage canal by connecting it to pipeline No.1/lockbode situated on the eastern side of Nidadavole main canal, the petitioners got issued a legal notice dtd. 10/12/2014 to the respondent authorities bringing to their notice about the high handed action of the 9 th respondent. After receipt of the said notice, the 5th respondent issued a reply notice dtd. 5/1/2015 admitting that the pucca drain connecting to the irrigation field channel to the lockbode and Mattaparru channel. On the other hand, the 6th respondent got issued a reply stating that the irrigation channel is purely under the control and maintenance of the Irrigation Department and within the jurisdiction of the 7th respondent. It is also the case of the petitioners that the irrigation channels are spoiled by dumping hazardous materials and by connecting the drainage canals into the field channels of irrigation system. It is the contention of the petitioners that even though there is a specific admission on the part of the 5th respondent that the 9th respondent got constructed a pucca drain and it was connected to the subject lockbode, the drain is not yet diverted.