WP/14447/2000 of P.VENKAIAH NAJGAMAMBAPURAM NELLORE Vs SPNTD.ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPT HYDAND3 ORS on 28 December 2006

ORAL ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring theaction of respondents 1 and 2 in digging a new channel and linking theproposed new channel with old Yellayapalem channel, for the purposeof release of water is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Proceedingsof the 3[rd] respondent dated 30-5-2000 and consequently to directrespondents 1 and 2 not to proceed with digging of a new channel andlinking the same with old Yellayapalem channel for the purpose ofrelease of water by directing respondents 1 and 2 to implement thesaid Proceedings of the 3[rd] respondent dated 30-5-2000.

It appears that the petitioners are all agriculturists. It is their casethat the State Government has initiated a novel scheme under droughtrelief programme, which is called ‘Neeru-Meeru’ for the year 2000-01. Under this programme, after receiving estimates from IrrigationDepartment for various tanks in the Districts and depending upon thenecessity, the Government released the funds. After releasing fundsby the Government, the District Collector used to grant administrativesanction for execution of the works. It was also made clear that theamount, which has been released for the year 2001-2001, was only forthe specific purpose of repairs and improvement of irrigation tanks, butnot for any other purpose. While so, the Assistant Engineer, IrrigationDepartment, Butchireddypalem sent estimates for repairs andimprovement with regard to old Yellayapalem Channel, Thurimerla Channel and Duvuru tank. Thereupon, the 3[rd] respondent, vide Orderdated 30-5-2000 accorded administrative sanction of Rs.5.42 lakhs forexecution of three works to the said channels and tank. Insofar as oldYellayapalem channel is concerned, the nature of work isimprovement of the carrying capacity of old channel and excavation ofleading channel. However, while issuing the Proceedings, the 3[rd]respondent directed the 2[nd] respondent to execute the works as perthe norms prescribed by the Government and Rules existing in force. Thus, the 2[nd] respondent under the supervision of the 1[st] respondenthas to execute the repairs of old Yellayapalem channel in order toimprove its carrying capacity. All the lands of Ayacutdars are situatedat the tail end; as such, they could not get adequate water for severalyears and in view of the same, the said Ayacutdars are demanding the3[rd] respondent to execute the repairs to old Yellayapalem channel inorder to get adequate water, but the State Government did not releaseany funds and the respondents failed to attend to the repairs of oldYellayapalem channel and in the net result, the tail end Ayacutdarssuffered a lot. Basing on the persistent demand by the petitioners andother Ayacutdars, eventually the Government released the funds under‘Neeru Meeru’ programme. Instead of taking repair works toYellayapalem channel, respondents 1 and 2 are acting contrary to thepolicy and sanctioning the amount for the purpose of digging a newchannel under old Yellayapalem channel. After digging the newchannel, respondents 1 and 2 have to link up the channel to theexisting old Yellayapalem channel for releasing the water. If at all thisis allowed to go, it will not benefit the Ayacutdars at all. Therefore, theWrit Petition.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2[nd]respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner and

asserting inter alia that the District Collector, Nellore accordedsanction vide Proceedings dated 30-5-2000 for improving carryingcapacity of old Yellapalem channel and also excavation of a leadingchannel. As per the said Order, the work has been executed. Theexecuting agency has been shown by mistake as ‘Executive Engineer,Kavali’ in the Proceedings dated 30-5-2000 instead of ‘ExecutiveEngineer, Central Division, Nellore’. Further, the allegation that onlythree Ayacutdars will be benefitted is false. Due to improvements toold Yellayapalem channel and digging the leading channel, irrigationfacility will be extended to the additional Acs.35.00 of Ayacut inBonthalapalem without any detriment or harm to any one including thepetitioners. The allegations that funds are being diverted for otherpurposes and the petitioners and other tail end Ayacutdars will not getwater are all false and baseless. On the other hand, the work is in theinterests of all the Ayacutdars.

At the time of admission of the Writ Petition on 7-8-2000, nointerim order was passed. No reply has been filed by the petitionerscontraverting the averments made in the counter. From the avermentsmade in the counter, it is seen that the work has already beenexecuted by the Department and as such, nothing survives foradjudication in the Writ Petition.

The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.

28-12-2006