ORDER : ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “…to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the illegal/malafide action of the Respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agriculture land of the petitioner in Sy.No.10/B, to an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas situated at Gudur Village, Kamalapu Mandal, Karimnagar District, without notice and following the procedure, is contrary to the rule of law which was guaranteed under Article 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of the India apart from the violation of the provisions of the A.P.(T.A.) Irrigation Act, 1357F, and rules made therein, consequently direct the respondents to remove the illegal culvert erected across the agriculture land of the petitioner herein in an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy.No.10/B, situated at Gudur village, Kamalapur Mandal, Karimnagar District and pass such other order or orders…” 2. Heard Mr. P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development appearing for respondent Nos.2, 8 and 9 and learned Government Pleader for Road and Buildings Department appearing for respondent Nos.3, 6 and 7. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Sy.No.10/B, situated at Gudur Village, Kamalapur Mandal, Karimnagar District. It is further submitted that respondents are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of agricultural land of petitioner by erecting a culvert across his agricultural land. It is also submitted that there is a culvert existing at a distance of 30 meters (approximately), that the proposed culvert by respondent Nos.4 to 9 would not allow petitioner to continue agricultural operations and that act of respondent Nos.4 to 9 is not in accordance with law. 4. It is submitted that culvert erected illegally opposite to agricultural land of petitioner has to be removed, else, it would cause damage to the crops cultivated by petitioner. It is further submitted that respondents violated petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that erection of culvert is contrary to the provisions of Irrigation Act, hence, requested to declare the action of respondents as illegal and arbitrary. 5. It is further submitted that respondents violated petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that erection of culvert is contrary to the provisions of Irrigation Act, hence, requested to declare the action of respondents as illegal and arbitrary. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings Department appearing for respondent Nos.3, 6 and 7, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed, submitted that there was a pipe laid across the road for field channel within road boundary, that when the road was a single lane road, small pipes were laid. That Government sanctioned amount for conversion of single lane roads to double lane roads. It is further submitted that in case of double lane road, culverts with small diameter pipe cannot clear the water, hence, the smaller pipes were replaced with pipes of 1.00 dia within the right of way of R&B road boundary. It is also submitted that water being discharged from old pipes will flow through the new pipes. 6. At paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit, there is an averment that Executive Engineer promised to construct a protection wall across the pipe in the land boundary of petitioner. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development appearing for respondent Nos.2, 8 and 9 placed on record written instructions dated 11.11.2025 received from Executive Engineer FAC, Irrigation Division No.6, Huzurabad and submitted that Irrigation Department is no way connected with construction of pipe culvert and that Irrigation Department has not made any request to R&B department for construction of culvert. It is further submitted that the decision of construction of culvert is the decision of R&B Department. 8. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions. 9. Petitioner is an agriculturist, owns an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Sy.No.10/B, situated at Gudur Village, Kamalapur Mandal, Karimnagar District. Copy of pattedar passbook (page No.31) and pahani patrikas (page Nos.25 to 27) are filed. It is the case of petitioner that a culvert has been constructed and water from the culvert is entering into his agricultural land, thereby damaging the crops being cultivated by him in his land. 10. It is not denied in the counter affidavit that a culvert has been constructed on the double lane road for discharge of rain water from one side of the road to the other. 10. It is not denied in the counter affidavit that a culvert has been constructed on the double lane road for discharge of rain water from one side of the road to the other. It is common knowledge that culverts are constructed for discharge of rain water from one side of the road to the other side. If culverts are not permitted to be constructed, water accumulated would flow on to the roads, thereby damaging the roads, causing inconvenience to the public at large. 11. Government sanctioned an amount of Rs.3704.32 crores, vide G.O.Rt.No.130 dated 27.11.2014, for widening of single lane roads to double lane roads and when such road widening programmes are taken up, it is imperative that culverts are re- laid or new culverts are taken up in the place of old culverts. It is the case of R&B Department that they have replaced the earlier culvert with a pipe of diameter 1 meter for effective discharge of flow of rain water from one side of the road to the other side. 12. It is the case of petitioner that due to construction of function hall/marriage hall, culvert is laid in front of his land and water flowing through the culvert is entering his land and causing inconvenience to agriculture operations of petitioner. 13. This Court requested learned Government Pleader for R&B Department to get instructions from the authorities. Written instructions, dated 15.11.2025, received from office of District R&B Officer, Executive Engineer (R&B), Karimnagar District, are placed on record. The contents of the written instructions are as follows: “The work "Widening of Single lane to Double lane road of Kamalapur to Ambala road from km.0/0 to 6/170 in Karimnagar District."was sanctioned vide G.O.Rt.No.130 T R&B(R.II) Dept, Dt:27-11-2014 which includes road widening work and reconstruction of Culverts. All road widening and Culverts construction works carried out within Right of way of R&B road boundary only. The said culvert (by Petitioner) work was taken up in place of already existing culvert and as it is widening work it was inevitable to reconstruct all existing culverts. The Work was commenced on 23-12-2015, the WP filed by petitioner on 23/03/2016 and work was completed in all respects by 2017. The petitioner stating due to Function Hall in opposite side water coming into his land, which is false. The Work was commenced on 23-12-2015, the WP filed by petitioner on 23/03/2016 and work was completed in all respects by 2017. The petitioner stating due to Function Hall in opposite side water coming into his land, which is false. Because at the time of execution of work (petition) i.e., in 2016 there was no structure (Function Hall) opposite side (Upstream side) and later in recent 1 or 2 years back only the Function Hall was constructed. The said culvert is 1 Vent (i.e., Single Pipe), at other locations there are culverts with 2 Vents and also there are slab culverts which discharge more water compare to 1 Vent culvert. If the Culvert is closed or removed water will stagnate on other side and the road will be damage.” 14. On a perusal of the written instructions, it is observed that work of laying of culvert was taken up in December, 2015, and was completed in March, 2016. That the function hall/marriage hall has come up in the last 2-3 years. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner that marriage hall is in existence for last few years is not a valid contention. In the counter affidavit filed by Executive Engineer, R&B Department, photographs taken in September, 2016, are annexed, no function hall/marriage hall is visible. Even in the additional affidavit filed by learned counsel petitioner in the year 2017, there is no reference to function hall/marriage hall. It is only across the Bar, learned counsel for petitioner raised the ground of function hall/marriage hall. 15. Be that as it may, on a perusal of counter affidavit filed by R&B Department, it is observed that Executive Engineer met petitioner and upon hearing the plea of petitioner, he promised to construct a protection wall across the pipe at land boundary of petitioner, so that rain water, if any excess, would not enter the land of petitioner and the water would be diverted to a nearby culvert. Executive Engineer on his own made such promise, it cannot be the promise of the State Government. It is common knowledge that culverts are laid for effective flow of rain water from one side of the road to the other side, without accumulation on the road. Culverts are constructed in the interest of public at large for protecting the roads, water can get accumulated on road and thus cause damage to the roads. It is common knowledge that culverts are laid for effective flow of rain water from one side of the road to the other side, without accumulation on the road. Culverts are constructed in the interest of public at large for protecting the roads, water can get accumulated on road and thus cause damage to the roads. Individual interest has to give way to larger public interest, this principle is accepted by Courts. 16. A fervent request is made by learned counsel for petitioner to direct the respondent authorities to uphold the promise made by the Executive Engineer. This Court cannot accede to such submission. It is observed from the record that petitioner is a small scale farmer, pursuing agriculture in an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas. By any standards, Ac.0.20 guntas of land is a small extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the petitioner’s status, this Court requests the respondent authorities, to see that water does not inundate into the land of petitioner by taking necessary steps such as laying of a small bund (mud), to protect the crops from being damaged. The request is made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as petitioner is a small scale farmer with an extent of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas. 17. With the above observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.