Petitioners claim that they are absolute owners and in possession of agricultural lands in Muktapur village, Pochampally mandal, Nalgonda district (Now Yadadri Bhongir district) in various extents in different survey numbers as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. According to the petitioners, their lands are in low-laying areas and for the purpose of proper utilisation of said land, petitioners have levelled certain portions of their lands. Responding to certain complaints of the villagers, particularly fishermen making a false allegation that petitioners were obstructing free flow of water to their lands, without following due process of law, respondents 3 and 4 have removed major portion of levelling of land made by the petitioners, damaging the standing crops; the objections raised by the petitioners were not considered and even the complaint to the District Collector, was not acted upon. Alleging that on account of the actions of the respondent authorities, the private patta lands and standing crops were damaged causing lot of hardship and suffering to the petitioners, this writ petition is instituted.

2. Petitioners prayed to declare the action of respondents 3 and 4 in removing major portion of levelling the land as well as damaging the petitioners patta lands without due process as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere in the occupation and enjoyment of their lands. By order dated 27.7.2016 this Court directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date, while adjourning the matter by two weeks to enable the learned Government Pleader to get instructions. The said order was extended from time to time. Opposing the claim of the petitioners and contending that petitioners have deliberately laid bund obstructing the free flow of water and trenching into the village tank, occupying the village tank, respondents justified the steps taken in the larger interest of the villagers and sought for vacation of the interim order of status quo granted by this Court. Petitioners filed reply, denying the allegations made in the counter affidavit.

3. When the vacate stay petition was taken up for consideration, counsel representing both sides have agreed for disposal of the writ petition itself finally.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Special Government Pleader for Telangana State.

5.1 The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is petitioners are absolute owners of the properties mentioned in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and they are carrying on cultivation of the said lands from time immemorial and in recognition of their ownership and possession, they were issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. As the lands in issue are private patta lands, petitioners are entitled to cultivate the same and for proper cultivation and utilising their lands, they are also entitled to develop the land; petitioners no way obstructing the free flow of water as alleged, nor they encroached into the tank bed as sought to be contended. It appears some neighbors have raised level of their lands and because of raising of the level of the land by the neighboring farmers, there may have been some impact on the free flow of water and for that petitioners lands could not have been affected.

5.2 Learned counsel further contended that even assuming that petitioners have affected free flow of water, the elementary principle of law requires putting the petitioners on notice and affording due opportunity before taking coercive action, more so, when the lands are private patta lands belonging to them and no interference can be called even by the authorities of the State, without following the due process.

5.3 Learned counsel further contended that even assuming that the lands of the petitioners are falling within the full tank level (for short FTL) and that petitioners cannot