ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent Nos.1,2 and 4 to 7, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 10, and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in connecting the drainage canals to the irrigation channel pipeline No.1 lockbode situated on the eastern side of Nidadavole-Narsapur main irrigation canal upto the kaja drain, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are having small extents of agricultural lands in Poduru Village and Mandal and depending on the agriculture for their livelihood. Their agricultural lands are irrigated under pipeline No.1 which is called as lockbode. While so, the 9th respondent-Grampanchayat got constructed a drainage and the same was connected to pipeline No.1/lockbode which is meant for irrigation of notified ayacut of 111 acres. In view of the same, the crops of the petitioners are being damaged. Therefore, the petitioners submitted representations to the respondent authorities. Having vexed with the attitude of the respondent authorities in not taking action against the 9th respondent, the petitioners filed W.P.No.9878 of 2014. At the time of hearing of the said writ petition, basing on the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation as well as the learned standing counsel for the 9th respondent that they are not carrying out any such activity as alleged by the petitioners, the writ petition was closed on 10.04.2014. Even after passing of the order dated 10.04.2014 in W.P.No.9878 of 2014, as the respondent authorities are allowing the 9th respondent to continue the drainage canal by connecting it to pipeline No.1/lockbode situated on the eastern side of Nidadavole main canal, the petitioners got issued a legal notice dated 10.12.2014 to the respondent authorities bringing to their notice about the high handed action of the 9th respondent. After receipt of the said notice, the 5th respondent issued a reply notice dated 05.01.2015 admitting that the pucca drain connecting to the irrigation field channel to the lockbode and Mattaparru channel. On the other hand, the 6th respondent got issued a reply stating that the irrigation channel is purely under the control and maintenance of the Irrigation Department and within the jurisdiction of the 7th respondent. It is also the case of the petitioners that the irrigation channels are spoiled by dumping hazardous materials and by connecting the drainage canals into the field channels of irrigation system. It is the contention of the petitioners that even though there is a specific admission on the part of the 5th respondent that the 9th respondent got constructed a pucca drain and it was connected to the subject lockbode, the drain is not yet diverted.

4. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the subject field channel is not at all pertains to the Irrigation Department and all the irrigation channels are under the purview, control, supervision and maintenance of the Revenue Department, but the pucca drains constructed by the 9th respondent is under the control of the 9th respondent. As such, a letter dated 10.04.2014 was addressed to the 10th respondent requesting him to curb such activity with a view to safeguard the welfare of the ryots and also cattle. If the sewage water enters into the field channels, the water of the field channels will be contaminated and it would cause severe ill-health problems to the cattle and spoil the crops. Even as per the Revenue Board Standing Order No.86 (2), the revenue authorities are empowered to maintain and control the irrigation channels. Admittedly, the subject channel is an irrigation channel. Therefore, the 10th respondent is responsible to take appropriate action and see that no drainage is connected to the subje