APHC010346022022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20948/2022 Between: Movva Rama Devi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MULLA SOHAIL SHAREEF Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PANGA MOUNIKA 2. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GRAM PAN) 3. GP FOR REVENUE 4. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 5. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA 6. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, in leveling up of donka road, unauthorizedly, situated in Sy.No.97, 98-1, 98-2, 98-3, blocking the natural flow of the drain and excess water flowing from about 2000 acres from southern side into petitioners’ lands admeasuring Ac.1.75 ½ cents in D.No.105, Ac.2.01cents in D.No.105 and Ac.1.76 ½ cents in D.No.105 and Ac.1.96 cents in D.No.104 of Varagani village into NSP canal, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Sohail Shareef, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for unofficial respondents. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioners are the absolute owners of the subject agricultural lands, which were purchased under registered sale deeds and they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by raising rain fed crops like cotton and chillies. He further submitted that, abutting the petitioners’ land (to its north), there exists a Varagani Polimera Donka, which runs towards the drainage canal abutting the NSP Canal. As the Government could not supply irrigation water through the said NSP canal due to shortage of water, the petitioners and others rely on the rains and when there is heavy rain, the excess water flow into the drainage canal abutting NSP canal on the east of the petitioners’ land. He further submitted that, the unofficial respondents have started filling the drainage canal which accumulates the excess water, from over 2000 acres, in the petitioners land making the land uncultivable. In the said circumstances, the petitioners have filed a suit vide O.S.No.349/2021 for permanent injunction restraining the unofficial respondents to meddle with the subject polimera donka by digging canal or by altering the natural level of the polimera donka. The said suit was decreed on 25.11.2001 and as the unofficial respondents has not adhered to the terms of the said decree, the petitioners have filed E.P.No.165/2008 wherein an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in E.A.No.481/2008 and a detailed report was filed. Thereupon, as the unofficial respondents entered into an understanding to restore the level of the said donka and the lands on the either side, the said E.P.No.165/2008 was withdrawn as not pressed. He further submitted that, when the unofficial respondents have again started blocking the drainage canal and leveling up the polimera donka, the petitioners have filed another suit vide O.S.No.146/2021 seeking declaration that the petitioners are entitled to discharge the excess rain water through the eastern drainage canal with its normal dimensions on the west of NSP canal and a mandatory permanent injunction to remove the said blockade on the north-east corner of the subject properties and to reduce the height of the southern bund of 1st defendant to its normal level and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their people from interfering with usual discharge of rain water from the lands of the plaintiffs into eastern drainage canal and the said suit was pending adjudication. While so, the unofficial respondents have started raising the level of Varagani Polimera Donka and also blocked the drainage canal. Against the same, the petitioners have made a representation to the 3rd respondent on 22.06.2022 but no action has been taken till date. As such filed the present writ petition. If the said action of the unofficial respondents is allowed to subsist, the petitioners would be put to irreparable loss and hardship, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat submitted that, the Gram Panchayat is not interfering with the subject properties as alleged by the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent nos.8 & 9 submitted that, his clients were not responding and a letter has been addressed to that effect. Further, learned counsel for the respective parties, on one voice, contended that, having filed a suit before competent Civil court, the petitioners cannot file a writ petition before this Court, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. It at all the petitioners have any grievance, they can take steps before appropriate forum, but not before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties. 6. The petitioners are claiming the subject agricultural lands through registered sale deeds and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising rain fed crops like cotton and chillies. It is noticed that, abutting the petitioners’ land, there exists a Varagani Polimera Donka, which runs towards the drainage canal abutting the NSP Canal and when there is heavy rain, the excess water flow into the drainage canal abutting NSP canal on the east of the petitioners’ land. While so, when the unofficial respondents have started filling the drainage canal which accumulates the excess water in the petitioners land making the land uncultivable, the petitioners have filed a suit vide O.S.No.349/2001 for permanent injunction which was decreed on 25.11.2002. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property and the schedule mentioned in the writ petition are one and the same. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have filed E.P.No.165/2008 as against the violation of decree passed in O.S.No.349/2001. It is the contention that, upon the understanding that the unofficial respondents would restore the level of the said donka and the lands on the either side, the said E.P.No.165/2008 was withdrawn as not pressed. 7. According to the petitioners, as the unofficial respondents have again started blocking the drainage canal and leveling up the polimera donka, the petitioners have filed another suit vide O.S.No.146/2021 and the said suit is pending adjudication. No reasons are forthcoming why the petitioners have filed the present writ petition while a civil suit is pending consideration with very same relief. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, having filed a suit before competent Civil court, the petitioners cannot file a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. 8. In Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Bombay V. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd.1, the Apex court has held that, law is well-settled that writ court should not interfere in the matter where suit or any other proceeding is pending before the lower court or forum seeking same relief. In view of the same, the petitioners have not made out any case warranting the interference of this court. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The petitioners are at liberty to take steps against their grievance, if any, in accordance with law, before appropriate forum.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS 1 (1995) 1 SCC 642