Telangana High Court
WP/24176/2004 of Nallamekala Laxmaiah, Vs The Superintending Engineer, on 27 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24176 of 2004 Between: 1 Nallamekala Laxmaiah, S/o. Seshaiah, R/o.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 24176 of 2004
Between:
1 Nallamekala Laxmaiah, S/o. Seshaiah,
R/o. Devarayapalli Village, Anantasagaram Mandal, Nellore District.
2 Devarala Narsaiah, S/o. Polaiah,
R/o. Devarayapalli Village, Anantasagaram Mandal, Nellore District.
3 Nallamekala Masthanaiah, S/o. China Masthanaiah, R/o. Devarayapalli Village, Anantasagaram Mandal, Nellore District. R/o. Devarayapalli Village, Anantasagaram Mandal, Nellore District.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
1 The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Ramalingapuram, Nellore Town.
2 The Executive Engineer, Irrigation & CAD Department, Kavali, Nellore District.
3 The Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation & CAD, Anantasagaram, Anantasagaram Mandal, Nellore District. Anantasagaram Mandal, Nellore District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto issue an order, writ or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus UnderArticle 226 of Constitution of India, declaring the order passed by the 3rdrespondent styling as notice in No. 87-A dated 28-10-2004 served on thepetitioners on 17-12-2004 directing them to remove the bore wells failing whichthe bore wells would be removed with the assistance of police as illegal,arbitrary, unjust and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and set aside the same and direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners and otheragriculturists irrigating their land with the bore wells and pass such other orderor orders.
Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREADEV.
The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:
Petitioners challenge the notice dated 28.10.2004 issued to them by theAssistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation, the third respondent herein. They statethat they have dug bore wells in the canal poramboke, to irrigate the landssince the ayacut was not receiving any water due to drought conditions.According to them, nearly 150 such bore wells were dug and the respondentshave chosen to initiate steps against them alone and they seek appropriatedirections against the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader forIrrigation.
A perusal of the notice dated 28.10.2004 discloses that the petitioners have dugbore wells in the irrigation canal and they were required to remove the samewithin two weeks from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioners do notclaim that the bore wells in question were dug in their own lands. Evenaccepting their contention that the bore wells were dug by the side of theirrigation canal in the Government land, it is impermissible for them to takesuch steps. Digging of bore wells either in the canal or by its side wouldadversely affect the flow of water. Illegal and unauthorized drawal of watercannot be permitted. In a way, the very fact that so many bore wells were dugright in the canal, discloses lack of supervision, care and maintenance on thepart of the officials of the Irrigation Department. At least, at a belated stagethey have woken up and took corrective steps. This Court is not inclined tointerfere with the notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have raised
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have raised crops depending upon the bore wells and if they are abruptly closed, the cropswould wither away. This Court cannot record any finding in this regard nor canit give any specific direction. It shall be open to the petitioners to make arepresentation to the third respondent or other authorities concerned narratingthe relevant facts including the stage of the crop said to have been raised bythem. If regulated and periodical supply of water through bore wells for a limitedperiod is not going to cause any harm to the operation of canal, or theayacutdars thereunder, the third respondent shall consider the feasibility ofaccording such permission for a limited period, at such intervals, as he maydeem fit, and ensure the removal of the pumps from the bore wells and theclosure of the same soon thereafter.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
---------------------------
27.12.2004
ksld
To
1 The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Ramalingapuram, Nellore Town.
2 The Executive Engineer, Irrigation & CAD Department, Kavali, Nellore District.
3 The Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation & CAD, Anantasagaram, Anantasagaram Mandal, Nellore District. Anantasagaram Mandal, Nellore District.
4 Two CCs. to the G.P. for Irrigation, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT).
5 Two CD copies.