ORDER : Petitioners claim that they are absolute owners and in possession of agricultural lands in Muktapur village, Pochampally mandal, Nalgonda district (Now Yadadri Bhongir district) in various extents in different survey numbers as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. According to the petitioners, their lands are in low-laying areas and for the purpose of proper utilisation of said land, petitioners have levelled certain portions of their lands. Responding to certain complaints of the villagers, particularly fishermen making a false allegation that petitioners were obstructing free flow of water to their lands, without following due process of law, respondents 3 and 4 have removed major portion of levelling of land made by the petitioners, damaging the standing crops; the objections raised by the petitioners were not considered and even the complaint to the District Collector, was not acted upon. Alleging that on account of the actions of the respondent authorities, the private patta lands and standing crops were damaged causing lot of hardship and suffering to the petitioners, this writ petition is instituted. 2. Petitioners prayed to declare the action of respondents 3 and 4 in removing major portion of levelling the land as well as damaging the petitioners patta lands without due process as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere in the occupation and enjoyment of their lands. By order dated 27.7.2016 this Court directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date, while adjourning the matter by two weeks to enable the learned Government Pleader to get instructions. The said order was extended from time to time. Opposing the claim of the petitioners and contending that petitioners have deliberately laid bund obstructing the free flow of water and trenching into the village tank, occupying the village tank, respondents justified the steps taken in the larger interest of the villagers and sought for vacation of the interim order of status quo granted by this Court. Petitioners filed reply, denying the allegations made in the counter affidavit. 3. When the vacate stay petition was taken up for consideration, counsel representing both sides have agreed for disposal of the writ petition itself finally. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Special Government Pleader for Telangana State. Petitioners filed reply, denying the allegations made in the counter affidavit. 3. When the vacate stay petition was taken up for consideration, counsel representing both sides have agreed for disposal of the writ petition itself finally. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Special Government Pleader for Telangana State. 5.1 The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is petitioners are absolute owners of the properties mentioned in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and they are carrying on cultivation of the said lands from time immemorial and in recognition of their ownership and possession, they were issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. As the lands in issue are private patta lands, petitioners are entitled to cultivate the same and for proper cultivation and utilising their lands, they are also entitled to develop the land; petitioners no way obstructing the free flow of water as alleged, nor they encroached into the tank bed as sought to be contended. It appears some neighbors have raised level of their lands and because of raising of the level of the land by the neighboring farmers, there may have been some impact on the free flow of water and for that petitioners lands could not have been affected. 5.2 Learned counsel further contended that even assuming that petitioners have affected free flow of water, the elementary principle of law requires putting the petitioners on notice and affording due opportunity before taking coercive action, more so, when the lands are private patta lands belonging to them and no interference can be called even by the authorities of the State, without following the due process. 5.3 Learned counsel further contended that even assuming that the lands of the petitioners are falling within the full tank level (for short FTL) and that petitioners cannot be permitted to undertake cultivation of the lands and in order to strengthen the tank the lands of the petitioners are required, such lands are to be acquired by following due process of law and without following due process to acquire the lands, individuals cannot be prevented from putting their lands to proper use. It is contended that high handed action of the respondents adversely affected the rights of the petitioners to enjoy their property and such action offends mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution. It is contended that high handed action of the respondents adversely affected the rights of the petitioners to enjoy their property and such action offends mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution. Learned counsel, therefore seeks mandamus to restrain the respondents from interference in their lands. 6.1 Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that as per the Revenue Records, lands claimed by the petitioners, are falling within FTL. He therefore submitted that even assuming that the petitioners are pattadars of the said lands, they are entitled to cultivate the said lands only when there is no water in the village tank. They cannot alter contours of the village tanks nor can they reduce the FTL capacity nor cultivate their lands throughout the year. The lands of the petitioners are Sikam lands and right of cultivation is available to limited extent. As tank is in existence from time immemorial and the lands of the petitioners are falling within FTL, in accordance with Section 24 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317, such lands are to be treated as Government lands and it is for the competent authority to deal with them as deemed fit in the interest of larger public. 6.2 According to learned Special Government Pleader, villagers, more particularly the fishermen have complained that petitioners have raised the bund to obstruct free flow of water, reducing the water level of the tank and there is also possibility of inundation in case of excess inflow of water. According to learned Special Government Pleader, Moosi River is the feeder source and when there is good rain fall in the upper regions any obstruction created would result in inundation and can result in grave damage to life and property of people living in the area. 6.3. On the basis of the complaint made by the villagers, the Revenue Inspector caused inspection and having found that there are certain obstructions created in FTL he reported to higher authorities. The irrigation officials conducted inspection of the land. The issue was considered by the Tahsildar along with Irrigation officials; their reports would disclose that certain obstructions are created by the petitioners to reduce the FTL and to make their lands out of FTL; the reports of various authorities are enclosed to the counter affidavit. The irrigation officials conducted inspection of the land. The issue was considered by the Tahsildar along with Irrigation officials; their reports would disclose that certain obstructions are created by the petitioners to reduce the FTL and to make their lands out of FTL; the reports of various authorities are enclosed to the counter affidavit. He would further submit that having found the obstructions, portion of bunds were removed to ensure free flow of water and Panchanama was conducted in presence of villagers and as of now, the bunds were already breeched. 7. The ownership of the petitioners with the extents of lands mentioned by them in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is not seriously disputed by the respondents but they contend that petitioners are also in occupation of the Government land to an extent of Ac.3.16 guntas in addition to land claimed by them as owned, which forms part of FTL. The Court is not inclined to go into the issue of whether petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the land which does not belong to them, leaving it open to competent authority to take appropriate action as warranted by law. 8. Petitioners sought to contend that as said lands are private patta lands, for the purpose of proper cultivation of their lands, they have levelled certain portions of their lands. Whether such action affected the FTL of the village tank and whether respondent authorities are justified in removing the obstructions alleged to have been created by petitioners is the issue for consideration. 9.1 Primarily Indian economy is agricultural economy. Historically major source of livelihood to millions of Indians is agriculture. In Telangana, much prior to independence the rulers have constructed well planned irrigation tanks which would cater to the irrigation needs of the village. While constructing irrigation tanks all care was taken about source of inflows, retention capacity, creation of outlet to release excess water inflow than the retention capacity, irrigation canals etc. The irrigation tank shall have water storage of a fixed capacity and also water spread area if there are good inflows in a given year. While constructing irrigation tank the area of the tank and the reach of the water spread would be specified. The water spread of a tank is called Full Tank Level (FTL). The irrigation tank shall have water storage of a fixed capacity and also water spread area if there are good inflows in a given year. While constructing irrigation tank the area of the tank and the reach of the water spread would be specified. The water spread of a tank is called Full Tank Level (FTL). Reaching of FTL of an irrigation tank depends on rain fall in a given year. However, even if it reaches the FTL it does not retain that level for the entire year and change of weather conditions and utilisation of water for irrigation purposes would reduce the tank capacity. Between the actual tank level and FTL there can be private lands. These lands are called Shikam lands. The owners can cultivate such lands when the area is not covered by water but cannot make any permanent constructions nor alter its status in any other manner which would impact the FTL. Thus, the right of land owner whose lands are falling in FTL are restricted unlike any other land owner. 9.2. Any owner of land is entitled to use his land to enrich himself. It is a valuable right and ordinarily State cannot interfere in enjoying private land by its owner. However, such right is subservient to larger public interest. Thus, for various reasons, Government can impose restrictions on use of private lands. Several enactments are made to regulate land use by owners. For the purpose of consideration of issue in this case, it is suffice to note three enactments i.e., (1) Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Irrigation Act, 1357 Fasli (for short the Act, 1357); (2) Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317; and (3) The A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. 10.1 Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Irrigation Act, 1357 Fasli (for short the Act, 1357) regulates irrigation works and Ayakuts. 10.1 Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Irrigation Act, 1357 Fasli (for short the Act, 1357) regulates irrigation works and Ayakuts. Section 3 (a) defines “irrigation work” which reads as under: In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, (a) "irrigation work" includes (i) all kuntas, reservoirs, tanks, anicuts, canals, their distributaries, channels, and sluices constructed, maintained or controlled wholly or partly by or with the consent of the Government for the supply, conveyance or storage of water; (ii) all construction works, embankment, structures, supply and escape channels, connected with the aforesaid water reservoirs, tanks, anicuts, canals, and their distributaries, pipes and sluices and all roads constructed for the purpose of facilitating the construction or maintenance of the said water reservoirs, tanks, anicuts, canals, distributaries, and their channels, pipes and sluices; (iii) all drainage works and flood embankments; (iv) any part of a river, stream, lake, natural water reservoir or drainage channel, to which the Government may apply the provisions of Section 6 or the water of which has been used before the commencement of this Act for the purposes of any existing irrigation work; (v) all lands appropriated by the Government for the purposes of water reservoirs, tanks, anicuts, canals and their distributaries, pipes and slucies and all buildings, machinery, fences, gates and other erections on such lands; (vi) all pumping sets which are owned or constructed or maintained or controlled wholly or partly by the Government and not handed over to any person. 10.2 As noted from the definition of irrigation work, the definition is very wide and it is safe to assume that subject irrigation tank is covered by said definition. According to Section 5, no person is authorised to construct, control or maintain wholly or partly an irrigation work as defined in clause (a) of Section 3 except the Government or with the sanction of the Government. According to Section 7, Irrigation Officer is authorised to enter on any land, remove any obstruction, close any channel and do any other work necessary for the use of the water for such purpose, and may take with him, or depute or employ such subordinates or other persons as he deems fit. As per Section 8, power is vested in Irrigation Officer to conduct enquiry with reference to maintenance of existing irrigation work. As per Section 8, power is vested in Irrigation Officer to conduct enquiry with reference to maintenance of existing irrigation work. Section 9 vests in him power to inspect, regulate, measure the land irrigated thereby or chargeable with a water tax and doing necessary incidental work. Section 10 authorises him to enter upon the land for repairs and prevention of accidents. 11. According to Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, Rivers, streams, tanks, ponds, canals, lakes and flowing water with all rights appertaining thereto are property of the Government. As per this section it is lawful for the Collector or other officer appointed by the Government for the purpose to dispose of them in his discretion. However, right of way or other right legally vested in any other person or the public would subsist. 12. Similarly Section 2 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, also holds that rivers, streams, nalas, lakes, tanks and all canals and water courses and all standing and flowing water and all lands wherever situated are declared to be the property of the Government. 13. A cumulative reading of the above provisions would make it clear that primary right vest in the Government in regulating the irrigation tanks and land falling within the tank area. Wide power is vested in the Irrigation Officer to enter into and to take all measures for protection of irrigation tank. Wide power is vested in Revenue authorities to take all necessary steps to protect the water tanks. The right that is available to the pattddar whose land is falling within the FTL is to the limited extent of cultivating the said land /using the said land for agricultural purposes whenever water in the tank has not reached FTL. 14.1 An issue of similar nature has fallen for consideration before this Court in M/s Krishna 70 MM and M/s Narasimha 70 MM theatre Vs. The State of A.P., District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others, 2013 (3) ALD 768 = 2013 (4) ALT 153 . It was alleged that the petitioners constructed building covering FTL of irrigation tank and Nala to an extent of Ac.0.4 guntas. It was contended that the property so encroached is vested in the Government under Section 24 of the Land Revenue Act. Proceedings were initiated under the Land Revenue Act and Land Encroachment Act. It was alleged that the petitioners constructed building covering FTL of irrigation tank and Nala to an extent of Ac.0.4 guntas. It was contended that the property so encroached is vested in the Government under Section 24 of the Land Revenue Act. Proceedings were initiated under the Land Revenue Act and Land Encroachment Act. Petitioners therein claimed that the land in issue is their private patta land and therefore they are entitled to utilise the land for any purpose and buildings were constructed after obtaining due permissions and Government cannot interfere. It was asserted on behalf of the petitioners that once there is no dispute that the petitioners are owners of the land, mere fact that Nala is passing through a portion of their land does not vest portion of the said land in the Government. 14.2 Dealing with the said contention and on analysing the provisions of Land Revenue Act and Land Encroachment Act, learned single Judge of this Court observed as under : “22. First about Section 24 of the Land Revenue Act. The Land Revenue Act has comprehensive enactment, which defines the nature of the lands, the right of the government, or private individuals vis-a-vis the land, and the manner in which the administration has to deal with the same. Section 24 is at threshold of the Chapter-IV of the Land Revenue Act, which deals with the land, and land revenue. It enunciates the general principle that the structures and bodies mentioned therein "wherever situated, are the property of the Government". Exceptions are carved out in Clauses (a) and (b). The remaining portion of the Section makes it clear that even where the Collector or other Officer dispose of them, in their discretion, the right of way or other right, in respect of them, shall remain intact. In S.N. Ranade's case (supra 2), it was held that even where the Government grants right over any land, owned by it, the grant does not cover the flowing water of the river. The tank bed, at its full tank level area, which is demarcated or the one covered by any public Nala, cannot at all be the subject matter of construction though the subterranean right right may vest owner or pattader. The expression "wherever situated, together with all rights pertaining thereto", employed of the Section 24 of the Land Revenue Act, assumes significance. 23. The expression "wherever situated, together with all rights pertaining thereto", employed of the Section 24 of the Land Revenue Act, assumes significance. 23. While Section 24 of the Land Revenue Act defines the right of the Government vis-a-vis the land or the geological features and structures thereon, Section 2 of the Land Encroachment Act virtually repeats the same with some difference as to its invocation, and in the context of taking steps for removal of encroachments. In this Section also all these streams, lakes etc, are mentioned and the expression "wherever situated" is employed. Assuming that the petitioners fit into Clause (d) in exceptions, even that would have the effect of vesting of the same in the Government. 24. Assuming that the right of ownership of the petitioners is intact, the last portion of the Section, viz., "subject always to all rights of way and other public rights and to the natural and easement rights of other land owners, and to all customary rights legally subsisting", disable them from making construction upon the Nala or any area within the FTL. In their explanation also the petitioners did not contradict the version of the 3rd respondent.” (emphasis supplied) 14.3. The decision of the learned single judge in Ms Krishna 70 MM and M/s Narasimha 70 MM theatre was affirmed by the Division Bench in W A No. 127 of 2013 except to the extent of holding that observations made by the learned single Judge on merits should not come in the way of consideration of the matter by the appellate authority. 15. Obstructions to free flow of water into the irrigation tank and blocking/reducing extent may result in flooding of the adjacent areas or villages causing damage to people in person and the private properties. It would also affect the capacity of the tank to cater to the irrigation needs of the village. Thus, whenever there is encroachment into the village tank or obstruction of free flow of water in the village tank or attempt to reduce FTL of tank, it is mandatory for the Revenue and Irrigation authorities to immediately act and remove such obstructions. As there can be imminent threat to safety of persons and properties and to prevent inundation, those authorities have to respond swiftly. 16. As there can be imminent threat to safety of persons and properties and to prevent inundation, those authorities have to respond swiftly. 16. The averments of the petitioners as well as respondents would disclose that there is Cheruvu (irrigation tank) in the Muktapur village which caters to the irrigation needs of the village from times immemorial. From the material on record it appears that the lands which petitioners are claiming as patta lands are falling within FTL. The complaint made by village fishermen would disclose that certain obstructions were created to reduce the FTL and obstruct the free flow of water. This complaint was acted upon and field inspection was conducted by various authorities including Revenue Inspector, Assistant Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department, Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer and having noticed that construction of bunds by petitioners was obstructing free flow of water, obstructions were removed. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition also, petitioners admitted the fact that their lands are in low laying area and for the purpose of proper utilisation, they have levelled their lands. This is exactly the complaint of the villagers as assessed by the respondents. 17. It appears there has been large scale encroachments into the irrigation tanks in the erstwhile Nalgonda district. Alleging inaction by the authorities against such encroachments, PIL No. 47 of 2013 was instituted before this Court. In the affidavit filed by Special (sic. Special Chief) Secretary to the Government, Irrigation and Command Area Development, it was admitted that as many as 184 tanks there were partial encroachments and action was being proposed. The Court found fault with that statement and directed the authorities of Irrigation and Revenue departments to remove the encroachments. Thus, authorities are bound to comply said direction in addition to relevant statutes referred to above fixing responsibility on them. 18. In the case on hand also the stand of the petitioners is that in order to utilise their land properly they have taken steps to increase the level of the land. The respondents categorically assert that it is not a case of simple increasing the level of the land but constructing a bund virtually dividing the tank so that the other side of the bund can be put to use for ever reducing the FTL of the tank. The respondents categorically assert that it is not a case of simple increasing the level of the land but constructing a bund virtually dividing the tank so that the other side of the bund can be put to use for ever reducing the FTL of the tank. Photos enclosed to the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit would disclose construction of a bund and water on either side of the bund. 19. The rights of petitioners to enjoy their patta land falling within FTL is clearly delineated by law governing the field. Their right to enjoy their land is subservient to larger public good/welfare. No land owner can create obstruction to flow of water into an irrigation tank, construct bund in the guise of utilising his land which impacts existence of irrigation tank in any manner. In matters of this nature and when violation is apparent on the mere ground of lack of prior notice or prior opportunity, even assuming petitioners were not aware, cannot by itself, invalidate the action of respondent authorities, more particularly in the teeth of statutory scheme, as noted above, decision of this Court in M/s. Krishna Theatre and directions issued by Division Bench in PIL No.47 of 2013. Statutory scheme envisages swift action and as these issues cannot brook any delay. 20. Having regard to the statutory mandate as noted above, and as delineated by this Court in M/s. Krishna Theatre, I am of the considered opinion that the decisions taken by the Revenue and Irrigations authorities in removing the bunds cannot be faulted. Having regard to the facts in this case, it cannot be said that the action taken by the respondents in ensuring free flow of water and maintenance of FTL as amounting to arbitrary exercise of power, warranting interference by this Court. Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 21. In order to avoid future complications and to ensure that the irrigation tank (Narsappa cheruvu) of Muktapur village is not encroached, the District Collector is directed to initiate immediate steps to identify the boundaries of the village tank as well as FTL and if necessary to fix the boundary stones. He is further directed to remove all obstructions to free flow of water into the tank and bunds created to reduce FTL. This exercise should be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 22. He is further directed to remove all obstructions to free flow of water into the tank and bunds created to reduce FTL. This exercise should be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 22. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Having regard to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.