N. V. RAMANA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking away the Handle and Oil Supply Pipe of the Oil engine used by the petitioners for drawing water from Sluice No. 11 of Kazuluru No. 2 channel for irrigating their lands in an extent of Ac. 12-04 cents, situated in Sy. Nos. 562/1 and 2,563/3 and 4 and 564/1 and 3 of kazuluru Village and Mandal, East godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. ( 2 ) THE petitioners claim that their landsare located on an upper level, and that they are irrigating them by drawing water from kazuluru No. 2 Channel, which flows from vella North, by the use of Oil Engines. About Ac. 80-00 of land belonging to different ryots is being irrigated through the water drawn from Sluice No. 11. According to the petitioners, about 30 years back, they got dug a small tank in Sy. No. 564/3 in an extent of Ac. 0-50 cents and drawing water into it through a bodi from Sluice No. 11 by the use of Oil Engine. There are about 40 sluices connected to Kazuluru Channel nos. 1 and 2 and all the ryots whose lands are located on a higher level are drawing water with the help of Oil Engines. The release of water into the channels, according to the petitioners, takes place under the supervision of the respective Mandal revenue Officers and near about Ac. 386-00 cents of land is irrigated through the sluices attached to Kazuluru Channels. While so, it is the case of the petitioners that on 22-12-2002, the 6th respondent-Mandal revenue Officer objected to the use of Oil engine for drawing water from the sluice. Though the father of the petitioners submitted a representation to the 4th respondent-District Collector requesting him to direct the respondent-authorities not to interfere with their right of drawing water, the same was forwarded to the 5th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. While the matter is pending before the 5th respondent, the 6th respondent visited the lands of the petitioner on 22-3-2002 and forcibly took away the Handle and Oil supply Pipe of the Oil Engine. Assailing this action of the 6th respondent, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. While the matter is pending before the 5th respondent, the 6th respondent visited the lands of the petitioner on 22-3-2002 and forcibly took away the Handle and Oil supply Pipe of the Oil Engine. Assailing this action of the 6th respondent, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondents, the 3rdrespondent-Assistant Engineer, Irrigation department, filed counter-affidavit stating that the lands of the petitioners fall within the ayacut of Sluice No. ll Kazuluru No. 2 channel. The petitioners are drawing water from the said sluice for raising the second crop. As there is severe scarcity of water, the respondents have taken action to regularize supply of water for the second crop and notified the extent of ayacut that would be supplied water. The respondents have no objection to the petitioners drawing water for the second crop, but they cannot be permitted to use Oil Engines to draw water for by use of such Oil Engines, the petitioners are drawing more water than they are entitled to, depriving water to those whose lands are located on the lower level. Though the petitioners claim that they are drawing water from the tank dug by them, they in fact, are feeding the said tank from out of the water sluices. The act of the petitioners drawing water by the use of Oil engines without the permission violates the provisions of Section 20 of the A. P. Irrigation utilization and Command Area development Act, 1984, and is therefore, illegal. The other ryots residing in the village made a representation on 20-12-2002 complaining about the illegal drawing of water by the petitioners. Acting on the said representation, the 5th respondent directed the 6th respondent to take necessary action against the petitioners. As the oral instructions to the petitioners not to use Oil engine to draw water, evoked no results, the 6th respondent removed the Handle and Oil supply Pipe of the Oil Engine to arrest the illegal drawing of water. Therefore, the action of the respondents, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for thepetitioners and the learned Government pleader for Irrigation for the respondents. Therefore, the action of the respondents, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for thepetitioners and the learned Government pleader for Irrigation for the respondents. ( 5 ) THE only question that arises forconsideration is whether by the use of Oil engine the petitioners are drawing water in excess than what they are entitled to, and if so, whether the 6th respondent is well within his powers to remove the Handle and oil Supply Pipe of the Oil Engine for making use of it in the drawing of water? ( 6 ) WATER is a precious commodity, and aproperty belonging to all living beings in the world, be it flora and fauna, and each of them is entitled to its due share. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the lands of the petitioners are located on a higher level and that they are drawing water from the Sluice No. 11 of Kazuluru No. 2 channel for irrigating their lands, and that they are entitled to supply of water for the second crop. ( 7 ) THE respondents having regard tofailure of monsoon, with a view to protect the interests of all the ryots of the village and to ensure that each of the farmers gets his due share of water, they have taken a decision to regulate the supply of water for the second crop, and accordingly notified the ayacut which would be supplied water. As the supply of water was being regulated, it is the case of the respondents that they received a complaint from some of the villagers whose lands are located at a far end that because of the illegal drawing of water by the petitioners by the use of Oil Engine, they are being deprived their due share of water. As the supply of water was being regulated, it is the case of the respondents that they received a complaint from some of the villagers whose lands are located at a far end that because of the illegal drawing of water by the petitioners by the use of Oil Engine, they are being deprived their due share of water. Inasmuch as the interests of other ryots was being adversely affected by the illegal drawing of water by the petitioners by the use of Oil Engine, the 6th respondent visited the lands of the petitioners and having found the petitioners indulging in such drawing of water, administered them an oral warning not to use Oil Engine for drawing of water, but when the petitioners ignored the warning and continued with their illegal drawing of water by the use of oil Engine, the 6th respondent removed the handle and Oil Supply Pipe of the Oil engine of the petitioners, disabling them from drawing water. ( 8 ) THE contention of the petitioners thatthey are making use of the Oil Engine only to pump out water from out of the tank, which they have dug and constructed for storing the water from the sluice, cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioners have themselves admitted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that their lands are located on a higher level and they have dug and constructed a tank to store water into it. When according to the petitioners themselves their lands are located on a higher level, it is difficult to presume how without making use of an Oil engine they can fill the tank constructed by them for storing water. The very purpose of the petitioners digging and constructing a tank in their land for storing water, indicates that they intended to enjoy more water than what they are entitled to. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt and no difficulty to hold that the petitioners are making use of the Oil Engine for drawing water from the sluice and not just to pump out water from the tank into their fields. ( 9 ) NOW, it is to be noticed whether the 6threspondent is justified in seizing the Handle and Oil Supply Pipe of the Oil Engine of the petitioners. ( 9 ) NOW, it is to be noticed whether the 6threspondent is justified in seizing the Handle and Oil Supply Pipe of the Oil Engine of the petitioners. It is the case of the respondents that despite administering warning to the petitioners not to make use of the Oil Engine for drawing of water from the sluice, they continued to draw the water illegally. Though the respondents to support their action of seizing the Handle and Oil Supply pipe of the Oil Engine, trace their power to section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Irrigation utilisation and Command Area development Act, 1984, having perused the same, I am of the considered opinion, that the respondents have no power to seize any of the implements used in the drawing of water from the sluice. What all the said section states is if any person or persons make unauthorized or unlawful use of water supplied from an irrigation system, he or they shall be jointly and severally liable for imposition of such charge as may be levied by the competent authority and such levy or charge does not bar launching of prosecution for any offence connected therewith. If according to the respondents, the drawing of water by the petitioners from the sluice by use of Oil Pump, was illegal and violative of the provisions of the andhra Pradesh Irrigation Utilization and command Area Development Act, 1984, they should have levied charges as prescribed under the Act or launched prosecution against the petitioners for such violations, but certainly they are not entitled to seize any of the implements used for the drawing of water from the sluice or irrigation channel. Therefore, the action of the 6th respondent is seizing Handle and Oil supply Pipe of the Oil Engine of the petitioners, is held to be illegal and arbitrary. ( 10 ) IN the above view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. A direction shall flow to the 6th respondent to immediately return the Handle and Oil Supply Pipe of the Engine to the petitioners. This order, however, does not preclude the respondents from taking any action against the petitioners, as is available to them under law and the Andhra Pradesh Irrigation utilisation and Command Area development Act, 1984. No costs.