Telangana High Court
WP/23067/2002 of Vechalapu Krishnam Naidu Vs The Secretary, on 30 December 2008
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23067 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioners are owners of the land in the ayacut of Raiwada Reservoir near Visakhapatnam. The Reservoir was constructed to cater to the needs of ayacutdars as well as to provide drinking water supply to parts of
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.23067 of 2002
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.
ORDER:
The petitioners are owners of the land in the ayacut ofRaiwada Reservoir near Visakhapatnam. The Reservoir wasconstructed to cater to the needs of ayacutdars as well as toprovide drinking water supply to parts of Visakhapatnam City. With a view to ensure objectivity, the Government of AndhraPradesh, Irrigation Department, issued G.O.Ms.No.160, dated22.10.1997, allocating 27.00 M.G.D of water per day to theMunicipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam, subject to the conditionthat in the event of failure of monsoon, the deficit is to be sharedby the Corporation as well as the farmers in the same proportionand that in case of emergency, the Corporation will supply water tothe Visakhapatnam Steel Plant on the directions of the StateGovernment. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the G.O.
According to the petitioners, the Reservoir was not fullduring the year 2002 and placing reliance upon the G.O., therespondents have not released the water to irrigate Acs.15344 ofland under it. The petitioners submit that the G.O. cannot besustained in law, inasmuch as it places priority on the supply ofdrinking water sacrificing the interests of farmers.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is statedthat the project was constructed to serve the dual purpose ofirrigating the lands and providing drinking water to MunicipalCorporation of Visakhapatnam. It is stated that except on rare occasions, the Reservoir was full and it had served both thepurposes without any short supply of water either for irrigation orfor drinking. According to the respondents, the G.O. was issued inconformity with the National Water Policy.
Heard Sri D.V.Seetharama Murthy, the learned counsel forthe petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation. It is not in dispute that the Reservoir is meant for supply ofwater to the agricultural lands in the ayacut as well as to providedrinking water to parts of Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam. For the projects of this nature, it is always betterthat the allocation is defined clearly. Through G.O.Ms.No.160,dated 22.10.1997, the Government allocated 27.00 M.G.D. waterto the Corporation. Even this allocation was not absolute orunconditional. A condition is incorporated to the effect that in theevent of failure of monsoon, the deficit should be shared by theayacutdars as well as the Corporation.
When the petitioners felt the grievance during the year2002, this Court passed an interim order and in pursuance thereof,the water supply was released. It is not even alleged that therewas any problem for the subsequent years. It needs to be clarifiedthat the interests of the ayacutdars must be protected, even whilehonouring the commitment to the Corporation. The clausecontained in the G.O. that the deficit must be shared by both, mustbe honoured in letter and spirit.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that theallocation of water in Reservoir, for the ayacutdars on the onehand and the Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam on the other shall be on equitable basis without compromising the interest ofany one for the other. There shall be no order as to costs.
REDDY,JDt:30.12.2008kdl
_____________________
L.NARASIMHA