ORDER : Anil Kumar Jukanti, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Tender Notice No.53/2014-15 dated 12.3.2015 issued by the 1 st respondent herein inviting tenders from Contractors/Contracting Firms/Companies registered with Government of Telangana/with Government of Andhra Pradesh registered before 02.06.2014 for restoration of Bandi Kunta Tank, Pedda Korukondi village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District under Mission Kakatiya Scheme, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, without jurisdiction, without authority of law and also violative of Order dated 17.07.2013 in 1.A.No.608 of 2013 in C.M.A.No.13 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act 1989-cum-Additional District Judge at Khammam and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein not to give effect to the same and pass.....” 2. Heard Mr. Md. Haneef Farhan, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 3. It is the case of petitioners that respondent authorities invited tenders for restoration of Bandi Kunta Tank, Pedda Korukondi Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District, under mission Kakatiya Scheme, vide Tender Notice No.53/2014-15 dated 12.03.2015. That the said tender notice is in violation of order dated 17.07.2013, passed in I.A.No.608 of 2013 in C.M.A.No.13 of 2013 by Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act 1989-cum-Additional District Judge, at Khammam. 4. It is further the case of petitioners that Bandi Kunta Tank is a private tank situated in the lands of petitioners and that petitioners’ vendors purchased the said lands from original pattadars. That applications were submitted before respondent No.4 seeking mutation of their names in revenue records and issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the said lands in survey Nos.95, 96 and 111, to the extent of land admeasuring Ac.31.10 guntas. That Writ Petition Nos.10140, 10141, 10144, 10151 and 10172 of 2014 were filed seeking direction(s) to respondent No.4 herein to mutate their names in revenue records. That the said writ petitions were disposed of by directing respondent No.4 to consider their applications. 5. That Writ Petition Nos.10140, 10141, 10144, 10151 and 10172 of 2014 were filed seeking direction(s) to respondent No.4 herein to mutate their names in revenue records. That the said writ petitions were disposed of by directing respondent No.4 to consider their applications. 5. It is also the case of petitioners that respondent Nos.2 to 4 tried to interfere with their possession and that O.S.No.62 of 2012 was filed by petitioners before Senior Civil Judge, Sattupally, Khammam District and that I.A.No.322 of 2012 was filed seeking temporary injunction. That by order dated 13.06.2013, I.A.No.322 of 2012 was disposed of directing the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. Against which, C.M.A.No.13 of 2013 came to be filed and in the C.M.A., I.A.No.608 of 2013 was filed seeking a temporary injunction and learned Special Sessions Judge by order dated 17.07.2013 granted temporary injunction. 6. It is the case of petitioners that they are engaged in the activity of rearing fish and that respondent No.4 addressed a letter to the Fisheries Department, wherein it was stated the said land is patta land of their vendors. That their names are mutated in the possession column of the latest pahanies (Exs.P10 to P24). On the basis of pahanies, it is submitted that Bandi Kunta Tank is a private tank of their vendors and that they purchased the subject lands vide registered sale deeds. It is further submitted that Government invited tenders for restoration of Bandi Kunta Tank under mission Kakatiya Scheme and that it being a private tank, respondent authorities have no right or authority to interfere with their possession. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 placed on record written instructions dated 24.10.2025 (signed by Assistant Executive Engineer). Basing on the contents of written instructions, it is submitted that the ownership and possession of petitioners is not disturbed in any manner and that the agreement for the said work was not concluded. Hence, the contentions of petitioners are not tenable in view of the written instructions. 8. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions. 9. It is the case of petitioners that Tender Notice No.53/2014-2015 dated 12.03.2015 was issued by respondent authorities for restoration of Bandi Kunta Tank, Pedda Korukondi village, Kalluru Mandal, under mission Kakatiya Scheme. Hence, the contentions of petitioners are not tenable in view of the written instructions. 8. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions. 9. It is the case of petitioners that Tender Notice No.53/2014-2015 dated 12.03.2015 was issued by respondent authorities for restoration of Bandi Kunta Tank, Pedda Korukondi village, Kalluru Mandal, under mission Kakatiya Scheme. Petitioners claim that they purchased land admeasuring Ac.31.10 guntas (single bit), which is a sub-merged area of tank, situated in Sy.Nos.111, 96 and 95. That Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) 1989-cum- Additional District Judge at Khammam, granted injunction in I.A.No.608 of 2013 in C.M.A.No13 of 2013 and that injunction is sustaining as on the date. 10. It is surprising to note that when the tender notice was issued in the month of March 2015, how could injunction be granted (order dated 17.07.2013) with respect to repair works which are to be carried out. Injunction was granted in the year 2013 and in no way, the tender notice is under challenge or brought to the notice of the Court below. 11. On a perusal of the order dated 17.07.2013 in I.A.No.608 of 2013 in C.M.A.No.13 of 2013, it is observed that petitioners sought for an injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the C.M.A., interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petition schedule property including rearing of the fish. 12. Be that as it may, a copy of the written instructions dated 24.10.2025 received from the office of Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division, No.2, Khammam District, has been placed on record. The contents of the written instructions are as follows: “I K. Sai Ram, Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub- Division No.2, Kallur of Irrigation Division No.04, Kalluru, Khammam District submit instructions for favour of onward submission to Hon’ble High Court as follows. It is to submit that, the Government that, the Government of Telangana have sanctioned an amount of Rs.51.00 lakhs for Restoration of Bandi Kunta, Pedakorukondi village, Kallur mandal, Khammam District under Mission Kakatiya Scheme vide ref 3 rd cited. Further, the tenders were invited by the then Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Khammam vide ref 2nd cited. Upon examination of the matter at various levels, it has been concluded the agreement for that said work was not concluded and the work was not grounded. Further, the tenders were invited by the then Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Khammam vide ref 2nd cited. Upon examination of the matter at various levels, it has been concluded the agreement for that said work was not concluded and the work was not grounded. Hence, the work Restoration of Bandi Kunta, Pedakorukondi village, Kallur mandal, Khammam District was not grounded and the petitioner possession and ownership is not disturbed in any manner. In view of these circumstances, these facts may kindly be appraised to Hon’ble High Court for further necessary action in the matter.” 13. On a perusal of the written instructions, it is apparent that the agreement for the said work was not concluded and the work was not grounded and the petitioners’ possession and ownership were not disturbed in any manner. 14. Considering the entire factual matrix of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for petitioners and written instructions dated 24.10.2025, this Court is of the opinion that grievance of petitioners that respondent authorities issued tender notification being violative of their rights is set at naught, as the very agreement of work has not been concluded. 15. A copy of the basic tank details have been placed on record by learned Assistant Government Pleader along with the written instructions. The following are the tank basic details under Mission Kakatiya: District Assembly Mandal Village Habitation Tank Name Tank code Geo Id Latitude Longitude Ayacut Capacity Khammam Sathupalle (SC) Kalluru Peddakoru kondi Peddakoru kondi Bandi Kunta 10116 32018 01302 804 726 170 970 17-5- 49.200 80-28- 21.360 120.0 11.4 16. It is submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader that the said tank is an irrigation department identified water body. 17. It is pertinent to take note of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Swacch Association, Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra and others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2144 , wherein it was held as follows: “6. The judicial wisdom has evolved the doctrine of public trust. This doctrine has the intake of Articles 48- A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution,which in its ultimate analysis aims to preserve and conserve the natural resources like air, water, objects of nature to be applied for public good and collective societal interest and the natural bodies of various kinds on the earth. This doctrine has the intake of Articles 48- A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution,which in its ultimate analysis aims to preserve and conserve the natural resources like air, water, objects of nature to be applied for public good and collective societal interest and the natural bodies of various kinds on the earth. The concept is that the public has a right to expect certain natural things including waterbodies, wetlands and natural lands like forests to retain their natural ingredients, and further that the idea of maintenance of their original characteristics finds way into the law of the land. 6.1. Propounded in M.C. Mehta (supra) and several subsequent decisions of this Court, the public trust doctrine is a salutary principle. The Supreme Court observed in M.C. Mehta (supra) that, “The notion that the public has a right to expect certain lands and natural areas to retain their natural characteristic is finding its way into the law of the land. The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as the “Doctrine of the Public Trust”. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life……” (Para 23) 6.2. In the following observation, there lies a dictum that upholding of the public trust principle is the duty of the governmental authorities dealing with the natural resources, “25. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. (Para 25) 6.2.1. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. (Para 25) 6.2.1. It was then stated, “Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust: first, the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; second, the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and third the property must be maintained for particular types of uses.” (Para 25) 18. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is imperative on the part of the authorities to protect the water bodies. 19. It is open to respondent authorities to take steps in accordance with law to protect the water body, though it is claimed as a private tank. It is apparent from the record that the water body is identified by the State as an irrigation department identified water body, then it would be in the interest of public at large to protect the water body, without interfering with the possession of petitioners. 20. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.