A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner claiming that he is an agriculturist owning Acs.37.00 of land. He stated that his lands are situated in the east and west of Veeranna Cheruvu and he is an ayacutdar of the said tank. Towards the eastern side of the tank, he dug five bore-wells in his land in Survey Nos. 52, 69, 70, 71 and 38 and is cultivating the lands. There is sufficient water in the bore-wells. However, on the western side of the tank, there is an agricultural land to an extent of Acs. 25.00 in Survey Nos. 106, 110 and 111 of Mohammadapuram Village. As there was no water source to the western side of the lands, he laid pipelines of about 330 metres from the eastern side of the land and raising crops like sweet lime, papaya, groundnut, paddy and other crops with the help of the underground pipeline water. The said underground pipeline was laid by the side of the kacha road, which passes on the bund from eastern side to western side. The said pipeline was laid in the year 2003 after obtaining permission from the then Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Hyderabad, in Memo No. DCE(MI)/OT3-T3/Misc/2003, dated 05.12.2003, and also the Gram Panchayat, Mohammadapuram. While so, in the year 2003, he constructed a big water tank with granite structure by spending Rs. 3.00 lakhs in the western side of the lands for storage of water, which is supplied through pipeline. Due to political rivalry and at the instance of local politicians, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are now preventing him from taking water from the underground pipeline from the eastern side to western side on the ground that it was laid along the kacha road in the land, which does not belong to him. He further stated that in the year 2003 when there was interference by the local Police at the instance of the local politicians, this Court, by order dated 11.12.2003 directed the Police not to obstruct the supply of water and the fourth respondent herein was also a party to the said proceedings and the only difference from 2003 to now is, interference by the Irrigation Officials instead of Police. Though the petitioner showed the permission dated 05.12.2003, when respondent Nos. 2 to 5 objected in spite of the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. When the matter came up for admission, it was adjourned twice for getting instructions by the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader produced the record today and it revealed that the petitioner earlier filed W.P. No. 25217 of 2003 against the local Police and the fourth respondent herein apart from seventeen others. In the said Writ Petition, when the learned single judge refused to grant interim order, he filed W.A. No. 2207 of 2003 against the order dated 03.12.2003 in W.P.M.P. No. 31774 of 2003. A Division Bench of this court passed the following order on 11.12.2003.

3. It is not known as to whether respondent No. 3 has filed any complaint against the appellant herein before respondents 1 and 2 and if so whether any case has been registered against him. But at any rate, we find it difficult to sustain the order passed by the learned single Judge refusing to issue appropriate direction to respondents 1 and 2 directing them not to interfere with the supply of water as prayed for by the appellant. In the absence of registration of any crime against the appellant and in the absence of any valid order from the 3rd respondent, the appellant herein cannot be prevented from supplying water from the underground pipeline as claimed by him.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside.

5. In the result, there shall be a direction directing respondents 1 and 2 not to obstruct the supply of water in any manner whatsoever. However, this order shall not preclude the 3rd respondent or any other competent authority to set the law in motion, if so desires, against the petitioner.

6. Thereafter the Writ Petition was dismissed on 16.11.2009