Order : This writ petition is filed by the Sarpanch of Singaram Gram Panchayat and certain others praying for an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not maintaining free flow of water from the left channel of Penam Madugu to feed Oora Cheruvu of Singaram village, Yellareddipeta Mandal, Karimnagar District as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to the provisions of A.P. (Telangana Area) Irrigation Act, 1357 Fasli and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and for other appropriate reliefs. 2. As already stated supra, the first petitioner is the Sarpanch of Singaram Gram Panchayat and the petitioners 2 to 5 are the members of the Managing Committee of Water Users Association of Oora Cheruvu of Singaram village, Yellareddipeta Mandal, Karimnagar District. It was also stated that the first petitioner owns an extent of Ac. 5-00; second petitioner owns Ac. 2-00; third petitioner owns Ac. 1-20 guntas; fourth petitioner owns Ac. 2-00 and the fifth petitioner owns Ac. 2-00 of land under the ayacut of the said Oora Cheruvu and that they have raised paddy crop in the said lands with the water from Oora Cheruvu of Singaram village. It was also stated that the ayacut of Singaram Oora Cheruvu is Ac. 265-00 out of which an extent of Ac.122-15 is being irrigated during rainy season; an extent of Ac. 52-08 is being irrigated during summer season and an extent of Ac. 90-17 is being irrigated twice in the year. It was also stated that the left channel of Penam Madugu a small check dam situate in Mallareddipeta village, Gambhiraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District which is passing through the hamlet of Ramanujapuram of Mallareddipeta village is feeding Oora Cheruvu of Singaram village and the right channel of Penam Madugu is totally feeding Oora Cheruvu of Mallareddipet village of which Ramanujapuram village is a hamlet. It was further stated that as per the revenue records and thibund register, the ryots of Ramanujapuram village are entitled to irrigate only Ac. It was further stated that as per the revenue records and thibund register, the ryots of Ramanujapuram village are entitled to irrigate only Ac. 5.2 of land during summer season from the left channel of the said Penam Madugu but however the ryots of Ramanujampram village during this season are coming and interrupting free flow of water from the left channel of Penam Maduguru and are trying to take the said water to their lands and thus they are trying to obstruct free flow of water from the left channel of the Penam Madugu and are trying to cultivate the area of Ac. 64-24 which is illegal and also contrary to the records and thibund register. It was further stated that now the Singaram villagers raised paddy crop in an extent of Ac. 140-00 under the ayacut of Oora Cheruvu of Singaram village and as the ryots of Ramanujapuram village are obstructing the free flow of water from the left channel of Penam Madugu a dangerous situation is created and the crops raised under the Oora Cheruvu of Singaram village are getting dried. It was also further stated that the petitioners made a representation to the respondents and also to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yellareddipeta Mandal who are Irrigation Officers under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Irrigation Act, 1357 fasli complaining about the obstruction of free flow of water in the left channel of Penam Madugu by the ryots of Ramanujapuram village. But however there was no response relating to the same. Subsequent thereto the third respondent Mandal Revenue Officer, Gambhiraopet and also Mandal Revenue Officer, Yellareddipeta once had a joint sitting at Mallareddipet Gram Panchayat in the month of January 2001 and in the said meeting it was accepted that by Patuwari of Mallareddipet that an extent of Ac. 5.2 acres only is to be irrigated by the ryots of Ramanujapuram village during the summer season. It was also stated that when the third respondent had not taken any action the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yellareddipeta wrote a letter No. B/195/2001 dt.14-2-2001 stating that Ramanujapuram people are trying to cultivate the area of Ac. 64.24 under left channel of Penam Madugu illegally and had requested the third respondent to use his good officers to stop the said illegal acts from the feeder channel and also illegal cultivation of the ryots of Ramanujapuram under left channel of Penam Madugu. 64.24 under left channel of Penam Madugu illegally and had requested the third respondent to use his good officers to stop the said illegal acts from the feeder channel and also illegal cultivation of the ryots of Ramanujapuram under left channel of Penam Madugu. But however no action had been taken and hence the said inaction is being questioned in the present writ petition. 3. This Court had ordered notice before admission by an order dated 27-2-2001 and the respondents 1 and 3 had filed counter-affidavits. 4. It is stated by the first respondent in the counter-affidavit that Penam Madugu is in fact constructed across the Manair river in Mallareddipet village of Gambhiraopet Mandal for stabilization of the existing ayacut under Manair Project during the surplus conditions of upper Manair and for flow of registered water only and as such the left feeder channel of the anicut feeds(1) Oora cheruvu/Mysamma Cheruvuand Singaram ayacut Ac. 257-00 of Yellareddipet Mandal; (2) Choudamma Cheruvu, Korutlapet village of Yellareddipeta Mandal ayacut Ac. 285-02 guntas; (3) Uppasamudram, Korutualapet village of Yellareddipet Mandal, ayacut of Ac. 59-07 guntas; and the left feeder channel passes through Ramanujapuram hamlet of Mallareddipeta village of Gambhiraopet Mandal after traversing ten chains from Penam Madugu. It is also stated that the left feeder channel then divides into two channels, one being R/s feeder channel to feed Oora Cheruvu/Mysammacheruvu of Singaram village Yellareddipeta Mandal and the right feeder channel's direct irrigation ayacut is Ac. 65-22 guntas in Ramanujapuram hamlet of Mallareddipet village, Gambhiraopet Mandal and the other is L/F feeder channel to feed Choudamma cheruvu and Uppasamudram of Korutlapet village, Yellareddipeta Mandal and the direct irrigation ayacut is Ac. 33-07 in Ramanujapuram hamlet of Mallareddipeta village, Gambhiraopet Mandal. It is also stated that the right feeder channel ofPenam Madugu feeds Peddacheruvu, Mallareddipet village of Gambhiraopet Mandal, the direct irrigation ayacut is Ac. 113-26 guntas fed with the water available drawing surplus of upper Manair i.e., during monsoon period. Now the question of feeding the tanks for second crop i.e. ,Rabi does not arise as it depends entirely upon availability of regenerated water. It was further stated that the ayacut of Ramanujapuram village comes under the direct irrigation of L/F feeder channel and the direct irrigation to the above ayacut and tanks (1) Ooracheruvu/Mysamma Cheruvu, Singaram village, (2) Choudamma Cheruvu and (3) Uppa Samudram of Korutlapet village, Yellareddipet Mandal, the ayacut Ac. It was further stated that the ayacut of Ramanujapuram village comes under the direct irrigation of L/F feeder channel and the direct irrigation to the above ayacut and tanks (1) Ooracheruvu/Mysamma Cheruvu, Singaram village, (2) Choudamma Cheruvu and (3) Uppa Samudram of Korutlapet village, Yellareddipet Mandal, the ayacut Ac. 257-00, Ac. 285-02 and Ac. 59-07 respectively is possible during monsoon period only i.e., during upper Manair Project surplus conditions. The question of 2nd crop therefore does not arise. It was further stated that as per the design proposals the question of water supply for second crop does not arise and hence the allegation made by the petitioners regarding the alleged obstruction of free flow of water by Ramanujapuram ryots is not within his knowledge and in fact no water is available for second crop, be it for Singaram ryots or Ramanujapuram ryots and the irrigation system under the anicut is only operative during the surplus conditions of Upper Manair that is during the monsoon period and hence the petitioners cannot insist upon supply of water for their second crop in any case. 5. The third respondent also narrating several facts in Paras 2 to 4 filed a detailed counter-affidavit. A specific stand was taken even by the third respondent to the effect that the ryots of Ramanujapuram village are not obstructing the free flow of water and they are not cultivating their land in Rabi season and there was insufficient flow in the left feeder channel of Penam Madugu to cultivate the fields of both the villages and as such the ryots of both the villages have no right to take water from Penam Madugu during Rabi season and hence the petitioners are not entitled to have water from the Penam Madugu in rabi season for cultivation of paddy crop as sufficient water is not available in Penam Madugu. It was stated that however no one is obstructing the flow of left channel of Penam Madugu as contended by the petitioners and it was also further stated that the writ petitioners cannot insist upon the supply of water for their second crop as a matter of right. 6. Heard Sri Satyam Reddy representing Sri Rajamalla Reddy learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader for Irrigation and perused the material available on record. 7. 6. Heard Sri Satyam Reddy representing Sri Rajamalla Reddy learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader for Irrigation and perused the material available on record. 7. Sri Satyam Reddy, had drawn my attention to the representation made on5-2-2001 in which the obstruction by Ramanujapuram villagers had been complained and also the correspondence between Mandal Revenue Officer, Yellareddipeta and the Mandal Revenue Officer of Gambhiraopet that is the third respondent herein. The learned Counsel had strenuously contended that though the concerned Patwari had accepted that an extent of Ac. 5-02 alone are the lands under the left feeder channel and in respect of that the ryots of Ramanujapuram village are trying to cultivate an extent of Ac. 64.24 acres illegally and are not coming forward for any compromise or for any discussion. The learned Counsel further contended that because of this illegal user of water by the ryots of Ramanujapuram village the petitioners are put to serious loss. In spite of repeated requests and representations no proper action had been done by the respondents in this regard. 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader for Irrigation Mr. Roy Reddy had strenuously contended that in the light of the specific stand taken by both the first respondent and third respondent in their respective counter-affidavits the petitioners cannot insist upon the supply of water for their second crop as a matter of right. The learned Counsel also had submitted that what applies to ryots of Singaram village also equally applies to the ryots of Ramanujapuram village also and at any rate all these aspects are factual aspects which cannot be gone into in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to Section 19 of the A.P. Irrigation Utilisation and Command Area Development Act, 1984 and contended that the disputes of this nature relating to the regulation of irrigation and equitable water use Management ought to have been gone into by the concerned officer under A.P. Irrigation Utilisation and Command Area Development Act, 1984 hereinafter in short referred to as Act and hence these disputes cannot be decided by writ Court. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the decision reported in Pennar Delta Ayacutdars Association v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 (2) ALT 634 and contended that the releasing or non-releasing of water for second crop to the ayacutdars by the Irrigation Department is not a justiciable issue so as to get the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Heard both the Counsel at length. 10. Section 2(16) of the Act defines 'Irrigation Officer'- as follows: ''Irrigation Officer'- in relation to a command area means an officer of the Revenue Department, not below the rank of a Revenue Divisional Officer, having jurisdiction over such area or an officer of the Irrigation Department not below the rank of a Deputy Executive Engineer, exercising control over the irrigation system in the command area and includes any other officer appointed by the Government to perform the functions of an Officer under this Act'-. Section 2(1) of the Act defines "command area' as follows: ''Command area'- means an area irrigated or capable of being irrigated either by gravitational flow or by lift irrigation or by any other method, under an irrigation system, project or source and includes every such area whether it is called 'ayacut'- or by any other local name in any law in force in the State.'- Section 19 of the Act deals with the power of Irrigation Officer to regulate irrigation system, which reads as follows: '(1) The Irrigation Officer shall, having regard to the availability of water and other factors have power to regulate the supply of water from an irrigation system upto and below a pipe outlet and specify; (a) the time for letting out water for irrigation. (b) the duration of supply; (c) the quantity of supply; and (d) the different areas to be supplied at different times. Explanation: Water shall be deemed to have been supplied if it is made available, whether or not it is used for irrigation of land under a pipe outlet. (2) An appeal against an order passed by the Irrigation Officer under sub-section (1) shall lie to the District Collector within fifteen days from the date of making of such order.'- It is also pertinent to note that sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act provides for an appeal against an order passed by the Irrigation Officer under sub-section (1). In the present case on hand, the main grievance of the writ petitioners is that the ryots of Ramanujapuram village are obstructing the free flow of water from the left channel of Penam Madugu to feed Oora Cheruvu of Singaram village and the respondents are not taking any action in this regard. The respondents had taken a specific stand that there is no question of supply of water for the second crop and at any rate, the writ petitioners cannot claim it as a matter of right. It is needless to mention that the supply of water to the ryots is to be regulated by the authorities keeping in view the availability of water and save the other factors. These are all aspects that are to be decided by the concerned competent authority and the writ Court cannot go into all these aspects. In Pennar Delta Ayacutdars Association case (1 cited supra) while dealing with a similar question at page 731 of the judgment it was observed by this Court as follows: 'In this case, how much water is to be stored, how much water is to be released for Khariff crop, how much water is to be left for seed-beds and other demands and how much water is to be released for second Rabi crop and in case if it is released whether it has to be released for 19,000 acres as contemplated in the project report or to irrigate about 1,17,000 acres (as prayed by the petitioners) are issues which cannot be subjected to judicial review, for there are no manageable standards to appreciate the evidence. Further, the dispute about the release of water is unsuitable for judicial review because it requires expertise in "Irrigation Management System and Water Resources Management', in respect of which matters, there are always more than one opinion. The Government of the day is the best judge, for the Government gathers information and material from various sources including the administrators assigned with duty to manage the irrigation system. The Government of the day is the best judge, for the Government gathers information and material from various sources including the administrators assigned with duty to manage the irrigation system. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the issue raised in this case is not justiciable, though in an appropriate case, the judicial review cannot be ruled out.'- It is no doubt true that in the letter dated14-2-2001 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yellareddipeta addressed to the third respondent herein it was stated as follows: 'Lastly, I request you to recall the discussion held at Gram Panchayat Building Mallareddipet of your Mandal. Though your Patuwari has accepted an area of 5.02 acres under this left feeder channel, your people are trying to cultivate an area of 64.24 acres illegally and not coming forward for compromise or for discussion.'- 11. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioners had made a serious attempt to show that though there is illegal use of water by the ryots of Ramanujapuram village the concerned authorities are not initiating any action in this regard. However, the relief prayed for in the present writ petition is relating to an inaction on the part of the respondents in not maintaining free flow of water from the left channel of Penam Madugu to feed Oora Cheruvu of Singaram village. It is needless to say that the respondents are expected to regulate the water supply depending upon several factors as specified supra and hence I am of the considered opinion that the writ Court cannot adjudicate upon these factual aspects which are expected to be decided by the authorities under a particular statute. Be that as it may, it is brought to my notice that though the ryots of Ramanujapuram village are cultivating the excessive land taking water illegally for reasons best known, the respondents in the writ petition are not taking any appropriate action in this regard. It is also needless to point out that the authorities under the Act specified supra are expected to regulate water supply taking all the factors into consideration. It is also needless to point out that the authorities under the Act specified supra are expected to regulate water supply taking all the factors into consideration. In the light of the facts and circumstances, the petitioners are given liberty to file a detailed representation narrating all the facts to the first respondent and the first respondent shall take necessary action on the said representation as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no other relief as prayed for in the writ petition can be granted at this stage. 12. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the observations and directions indicated above. No order as to costs.