Judgment :- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to construct the retaining walls over the petitioners’ property admeasuring Ac.0.95 cents in T.S.No.126, Ward No.1(Old), situated within the limits of Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Anantapur, without acquiring the same, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Article-300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, who are five in number, are represented by their General Power of Attorney (GPA), who has filed the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioners are the owners of Ac.0.95 cents in T.S.No.126, Ward No.1(Old), situated within the limits of Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Anantapur; that he has taken the said property on lease by way of a registered lease deed, dated 08.11.1990, for a period of 30 years, i.e., from 08.11.1990 to 07.10.2020, for using the same for residential purpose; that a vanka called ‘Nadimi vanka’ (a water stream) is passing on the western side of the said property to a width of Ac.0.30 cents; and that recently, the work of construction of the retaining walls on the sides of the said vanka is entrusted to a contractor. The deponent further stated that in the course of construction of the retaining walls, in order to save some buildings coming in the line of alignment, the respondents have changed the alignment, as a result of which, the petitioners are losing an additional extent of land; that he has issued legal notice, dated 11.01.2012, to the respondents; and that as the work of construction of the retaining walls has not been stopped, the present Writ Petition is filed. Respondent No.1-Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, I.B.Division, Anantapur, has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he has inter alia stated that the property in T.S.No.126 of Anantapur city belongs to petitioner No.1 and four others and that the total extent of T.S.No.126 is Acres.43.70 cents. The counter-affidavit denied the plea of the GPA of the petitioners that he is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.95 cents in T.S.No.126 and that as per the measurements given in notice, dated 11.11.2012, the total extent of property in the occupation of the GPA of the petitioners in T.S.No.126 is coming only to Ac.0.55 cents. The counter-affidavit denied the plea of the GPA of the petitioners that he is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.95 cents in T.S.No.126 and that as per the measurements given in notice, dated 11.11.2012, the total extent of property in the occupation of the GPA of the petitioners in T.S.No.126 is coming only to Ac.0.55 cents. It is further averred in the counter-affidavit that as per the Village plan and Field Marked Boundary (FMB) sketch of revenue records, Nadimi vanka enters T.S.No.126 from T.S.No.129 and traverses through T.S.No.126; that Nadimi vanka is a natural course formed originally to carry maximum flood water of about 12,689 cusecs; that as per the FMB sketch, the width of the vanka at this site is 120 links or 79.20 feet or 24.14 meters; that the original alignment of the said vanka course was not at all altered by the Irrigation Department and that the same is evident by the existing road bridge which was constructed in Survey No.126 by Anantapur Municipal Corporation long back across Nadimi vanka on Anatapur-Narayanapuram road in Somanath Nagar; and that the GPA of the petitioners is making attempts to encroach the said vanka course and is obstructing the natural flow of drainage water and the development work also. It is further averred that the surplus water from Alamuru M.I.tank and Kakkalapalli M.I. tank joins on the upstream of National Highway No.44 road as, Nadimi vanka passes through the heart of Anatapur city; that a number of encroachments were cleared along the banks of Nadimi vanka; that when good rains are received in the catchment area, the flood water besides the drainage water from the surrounding residential colonies including the Township causes disturbance to the normal life of the residents apart from loss of property, etc; that in order to overcome the said problem and based on the representation of the then local M.L.A. Anantapur Assembly Constituency, the Government has accorded administrative approval for the work, “comprehensive developmental activities for providing better irrigation, drainage and drinking water facilities in Anatapur Assembly Constituency of Anantapur District”, for Rs.5,933 lakhs, vide G.O.Rt.No.120, I & CAD (Minor-III) Department, dated 29.01.2009; that the estimate for the work was technically sanctioned for Rs.5,933 lakhs and registered as CEI (R) No.269/08-09 by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Hyderabad, vide proceedings No.DEC(MI)/OT2-T2.7254/2008, dated 05.02.2009; and that the work was entrusted to M/s RMN.GVR Joint Ventures, Engineers & Contractors, Hyderabad, vide Agreement No.13 SEA/2009-10, dated 11.11.2009. It is further averred that the petitioners have filed O.S.No.639 of 2011 in the Court the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur; that a counter was filed on behalf of respondent No.1 through the Government Pleader, Anantapur; and that the petitioners have deliberately concealed the said facts and thereby, abused the process of Court. It is further stated that the retaining walls were constructed for a length of 1.70 KM upto T.S.No.129, duly removing all the encroachments on the banks of Nadimi Vanka; that the work was stopped from 1.70 KM onwards upto 1.85 KM i.e., upto the road bridge due to the interim order of this Court; and that the work beyond 1.85 KM is being executed duly adhering to the width of the said vanka as per the revenue records. Though the counter-affidavit was filed as far back as 06.03.2012, no rejoinder is filed denying any of the allegations contained therein. I have heard Sri V.V.Satish, the learned counsel representing Sri S.V.Ramana, the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners have filed a copy of notice, dated 11.01.2012, issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which contains a schedule. I have heard Sri V.V.Satish, the learned counsel representing Sri S.V.Ramana, the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners have filed a copy of notice, dated 11.01.2012, issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which contains a schedule. Though an extent of Ac.0.95 cents is shown out of Acres.43.85 cents in T.S.No.126 in the said schedule, specific measurements of the property have been mentioned in the notice. The counter-affidavit is categorical that as per the measurements shown in the schedule, the property in occupation of the GPA of the petitioners comes to only Ac.0.55 cents. This averment is neither denied by the petitioners by filing a rejoinder nor by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing. The petitioners have also not denied the fact that they have filed O.S.No.639 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur, in which a counter was filed by respondent No.1 through the Government Pleader, Anatapur. The petitioners have not disclosed the said fact in the affidavit. Therefore, as rightly pleaded by the respondents, the petitioners have suppressed the material fact of their filing the above-mentioned suit. Evidently, having failed to get an interim order in the said suit, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition by suppressing the fact of filing the said suit. The Doctrine of uberima fides requires a party approaching the Court to bring to its notice all the facts material to the determination of his rights and it is no excuse for him to say that he was not aware of the importance of any facts which he has omitted to bring forward. If the party does not act uberima fides and put every material fact before the Court, it will not grant him the relief even though there might be facts upon which a relief might be granted (See R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner [(1917) 1 KB 486 (DC & CA)]) In my opinion, the petitioners are guilty of suppression of material fact and the Writ Petition is liable to be thrown out on this ground alone. Even on merits, the petitioners failed to make out any case for interference by this Court. Even on merits, the petitioners failed to make out any case for interference by this Court. The very pleading in the Writ Petition, viz., that the GPA of the petitioners is in occupation of Ac.0.95 cents is contradicted by their own legal notice, as referred to above. Further more, the respondents in the counter-affidavit have asserted that the said vanka has a width of 120 links or 79.20 feet or 24.14 meters at the disputed site. The respondents have filed the maps forming part of record to substantiate this averment, which remained uncontroverted. The respondents have also filed a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.639 of 2011. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have miserably failed to prove their allegation that the respondents have been trying to construct the retaining walls over the site belonging to them. On the contrary, from the facts pleaded by the respondents and supported by material, the GPA of the petitioners was making an attempt to encroach upon the natural water course, viz., Nadimi Vanka. The petitioners have indulged in an abhorrent act of suppression of material fact of filing the above-mentioned suit in the present Writ Petition and stalled the work of construction of the retaining walls, thereby, seriously affecting public interest. The despicable conduct of the petitioners deserves strong condemnation. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only). As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.4936 of 2012 filed for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.