Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1760
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J.
Manneni Seethaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition No.19594 of 2014
Decided On : 29-10-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S APPADHARA REDDY
For the Respondent: GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP)
The prioritization of public drinking water supply over agricultural water rights is valid when regulated, maintaining limits on usage.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and 300-A - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioners, being agriculturists and ayacutdars, challenge the illegal and arbitrary orders concerning water drawal from Baithupalli Tank for drinking purposes, asserting violation of their rights. (Para 1)
(B) Administrative Law - A valid public interest, such as supply of drinking water, can overrule individual rights of water usage for agriculture, provided limits are maintained. The Court found the permissible draw of 40 Mcft is reasonable. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, ayacutdars of Baithupalli Tank, which irrigates 4,800 acres, claim orders permitting water drawal for drinking from their tank without notice enforces hardship on their agricultural rights. (Paras 1, 4, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court refused to intervene in the orders permitting water drawal, noting the government prioritizes drinking water needs and limits the draw to 40 Mcft. (Paras 12, 14)
Issues: Whether the order allowing drinking water use overrides the agricultural rights of the petitioners. (Para 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that prioritizing public drinking water is legitimate over individual agricultural needs when limits on usage are assigned. (Paras 12, 13)
Result: Writ Petition is closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners are farmers dependent on baithupalli tank. (Para 1 , 4 , 10) |
| 2. legal procedures and representation in court. (Para 2 , 3 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. concerns over water rights for agriculture. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. government's priority for drinking water supply. (Para 7 , 8 , 13) |
| 5. court supports government's water resource decision. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 6. the writ petition is closed with no costs. (Para 15) |
ORDER:
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J.
This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent dated 31.05.2014 vide proceedings No.DCE (MI)/OT2-T3/1696/Sathupalli/09 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 300-A Constitution of India, Set aside the same and to pass…”
2. Heard Ms. S.Navyatha, learned amicus for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for respondents.
3. There was no representation on behalf of petitioners. This Court by docket order dated 23.10.2025 appointed Ms. S.Navyatha (a young budding lawyer) as amicus to assist the Court. Today, when the matter is called, there was no representation for petitioners. Learned amicus has made submissions.
4. It is submitted by learned amicus that petitioners are agriculturists and ayacutdars of Baithupalli Tank, Baithupalli Village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District, that the said tank was constructed for the purpose of irrigation. That the water source to the tank is Mallepoolevagu, nearly ‘10’ lift irrigation schemes are said to be running on the said Mallepoolevagu. It is after the extraction of water under lift irrigation schemes, left over water is released to Baithupalli Tank, which irrigates about Ac.4,800.00 guntas of land. The said land pertains to ayacutdars of Baithupalli, Thumburu, Tallamada and Narayanapuram. That the agriculturists are duly paying the cist (tax) to the Government.
5. It is submitted that a tank by name Vesyakanthala Cheruvu is adjacent to the Sathupalli Nagar Panchayat and Baithupalli tank is situated at a distance of 6 km. and for the purpose of drinking water supply to Sathupalli Nagar Panchayat, water can always be utilized from Vesyakanthala Cheruvu. It is also submitted that a number of borewells are existing in and around Nagar Panchayat and corporate water factory is also operating on the borewells and water from borewells can always be utilized for drinking water supply to Sathupalli town. Instead of taking recourse to alternative supplies, respondent authorities without issuing notice to ayacutdars about the release of water for drinking purpose to the citizens of Sathupalli Town, respondent authorities issued proceedings dated 31.05.2014 and Memo dated 20.06.2014.
6. It is submitted that if permission is granted to the authorities to supply water from Baithupalli Tank, it would cause prejudice to petitioners and they would be put to loss, as no water would be available for their agricultural purposes. It is further submitted that as per the proceedings dated 31.05.2014, total utilization should not exceed 40.00 Mcft. by the pump sets which are designed to lift the water. It is contended that if Memo dated 20.06.2014 is allowed to operate, the rights of petitioners would be effected, thereby rendering their families penniless. Thus, impacting their occupation of agriculture.
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation for respondent Nos.1 to 6 submitted that as per Memo dated 31.05.2014 issued by Engineer-In-Chief drinking water is the top prior and that only 40 Mcft. of water is permitted to be drawn and the total utilization for the purpose of drinking water will not be exceeding 40 Mcft. It is further submitted that Vesyakanthala Cheruvu is situated adjacent to Sathupalli town, does not have the required capacity t
