P KISTA REDDY Vs. COLLECTOR HYDERABAD DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners are agriculturists of Yamjal Village, Medchal Taluk, Hyderabad District. In that village, the 1st petitioner owns a piece of land situated in Survey No. 170 and the 2nd petitioner owns another piece of land situated in Survey No. 202 (extents are not necessary to mention). In their respective lands, the two petitioners dug two wells from which they take water for cultivating their other lands situated for and near by the use of electric power. The two wells are situated within fifty yards from the Shikam of Chinna Raini Cheruvu of the same village. The Chinna Raini Cheruvu is a Government tank maintained by the Government and is a source of irrigation for cultivating about 131 acres of wet land of that village. It appears that some ryots of that village represented to the Tahsildar, Medchal that the petitioners' taking of water from the Chinna Raini Cheruvu to irrigate their dry lands is depriving the ayacutdars of their share of water from the aforesaid tank which they require to cultivate their wet lands. On this representation the Tahsildar passed an exparte order dated 29-11-1975 prohibiting the petitioners from irrigating their dry lands with the use of electric power. Again, on the representation of the petitioners, he made a spot inspection on 4-12-1975 and passed an order on 6-12-1975 allowing the petitioners to take water from their submerged wells. After this, on the basis of a complaint made by some of the ayacutdars of the aforesaid Chinna Raini Cheruvu, the Assistant Collector Hyderabad East Division, Hyderabad District, appears to have inspected the lands on 6-1-1976 and found that the use of water of the tank through pumps installed by the petitioners would result in diminishing the supply of water to the ayacut lands under the tank and the act of the petitioners was in contravention of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Irrigation Act, 1357 F., He, therefore, requested the Collector, Hyderabad District, to take action against the petitioners under Section 49 of the said Act. On the basis of that, the District Collector issued a show cause notice under Section 49 (i) (b) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Irrigation Act, 1357 F, calling upon the petitioners to show cause why action should not be taken under the aforesaid Act.

(2.) To that show cause notice, the petitioners made their reply dated 9-3-1976. The petitioners' defence, before the Collector, was three-fold. They firstly contended that the Chinna Raini Cheruvu is not a 'new irrigation work' and that therefore the aforesaid Act would not apply to the tank. Secondly, they contended that the ayacut of Chinna Rainj Cheruvu being only 131 acres, the aforesaid Act would not apply to the said Cheruvu. Thirdly, they contended that the wells being situated in their own patta lands, they are at liberty to use the water that flows into the wells by natural process. The District Collector, Hyderabad, after considering the defence of the petitioners and hearing them through their advocates, held that Chinna Raini Cheruvu is a 'new irrigation work' within the meaning of the aforesaid Act and that, therefore, Section 2, which makes the Act applicable to all new irrigation works, squarely covers the case. The District Collector also rejected the second defence of the petitioners on the ground that the statutory requirement that the ayacut of the tank should not be less than 2,000 acres does not apply to a new irrigation work which he held the Chinna Raini Cheruvu is. He also rejected the third defence of the petitioners on the ground that though they are using water from their wells, the wells were situated in the Shikam of the Chinna Raini Cheruvu and that, therefore, the drawing of the water is resulting in diminishing of the water available to the ayacutdars. He held that the writ petitioners have contravened the provisions of Section 19 and section 49 of the A.P (T.A.) Irrigation Act, 1357 F. for having unlawfully irrigated the dry lands with the water of Chinna Raini Cheruvu and thus acted in a way which reduces the utility of the tank for the purpose for which it was constructed. So holding, he ordered under Sec. 49 of the said Act that each of the petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. He further ordered under Section 51 of the said Act that the Writ petitioners should remove the under ground pipe line laid by them for drawal of water from Chinna Raini Cheruvu within fifteen days from the date of his order (Case No. A1/24378/75 dated 30th July, 1977). It is against this order of the District Collector, the petitioners have tiled this Writ Petition praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the relevant records and quash the said order of the 1st respondent.

(3.) The Hyderabad Irrigation Act (Act 24 of 1357 Fasli) applies to all new irrigation works, their ayacuts and to ail other irrigation works with ayacuts of two thousand acres or more and their ayacuts (Section 2). Under Section 19(1), every person desiring to receive water for lands, other than those classed as wet, from an irrigation work shall submit an application therefor to the Irrigation Officer in the prescribed form. Under Section 49, whosoever wilfully and without the permission of the competent officer, commits or attempts to commit certain acts like interfering with or ciminishing the supply of water in or the flow of water through over or under any irrigation work or does some other act which reduces its utility for the purposes for which it was constructed shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months.