JUDGMENT : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. One Sri K. Thippeswamy had filed his declaration under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 declaring the extent of land held by him. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Dharmavaram, by it’s order dated 15.11.1976, in U.O.No.2188 of 1975 had held that the said K. Thippeswamy was a surplus holder to an extent of 2.7281 standard holding. Aggrieved by the said orders, he had filed L.R.A.No.933 of 1977, before the land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kurnool which came to be re-registered as L.R.A.No.63 of 1977. The appellant had raised various grounds, assailing the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal. One of the grounds raised was that an extent of Ac.40.00 cents of land in Sy.No.329 of Kalyandurg Village is unfit for cultivation due to kunta water stagnation in the said survey number and as such, the share of the appellant in the said land should be deleted from his holding. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, in answer to this contention had found that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.329 consists of Ac.92.00 cents, out of which, about Ac.32.00 cents is submergible area. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal held that the appellant had failed to prove that no crop can be raised in this land at any time and that there is stagnation of water during the entire year. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal held that agricultural operations and ancillary operations can be conducted during the days when the water recedes. Apart from this, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal also held that the definition of the land, in the Act, includes waste lands and even lands claimed to be uncultivable land cannot be deleted from the holding of the appellant. 2. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal after considering all the other grounds had passed an order, on 15.07.1978. Aggrieved by this order, C.R.P.No.3562 and 3711 of 1977 came to be filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the same was dismissed on 18.04.1978. Thereafter, Sy.No.329 was subdivided into 329-1, 329-2 and 329-3. The original owner surrendered Ac. 19.42 cents in Sy.No.329-2 and same was assigned to landless poor persons apart from acquisition of Ac.1.50 cents for formation of Kalyandurg bypass road. 3. Subsequently, the owners had sold Ac. Thereafter, Sy.No.329 was subdivided into 329-1, 329-2 and 329-3. The original owner surrendered Ac. 19.42 cents in Sy.No.329-2 and same was assigned to landless poor persons apart from acquisition of Ac.1.50 cents for formation of Kalyandurg bypass road. 3. Subsequently, the owners had sold Ac. 14.00 cents to the 1St appellant herein, by way of a registered deed of sale, dated 09.08.2012, and another extent of Ac. 14.00 cents to the 2nd and 3rd  appellants, by way of a registered deed of sale, dated 10.12.2012. 4. While matter stood thus, certain Public Interest Litigations had been filed for seeking directions to the State and its authorities to remove encroachments over various government lands, tank lands and road poramboke. One of these Public Interest Litigations W.P.(PIL).No.105 of 2022 was filed complaining of the inaction of the officials in protecting the water body in Sy.No.329 and in removing encroachments made in the said land. All these Public Interest Litigations including W.P.(PIL).No.105 of 2022 were disposed of, by way of a common order of a Division Bench of this Court, with directions to the authorities to take up necessary steps for removing unauthorized occupiers/encroachers over such lands and to protect water bodies from such encroachments. Pursuant to this direction, a show cause notice, dated 23.12.2022, was issued to the appellants herein, calling upon them to show cause why action should not be taken for removing certain structures said to have been constructed in the land of the appellants and to stop filling up of the water body, for the purposes of converting it into house site plots. The appellants had replied to the show cause notice, by way of their explanation, dated 26.12.2022. In this explanation, it was stated that the land was private land which had been purchased by them. Reference was also made to the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal as well as the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh holding that the land remains agricultural land. The contention of the appellants was that the said land is the private property of the appellants which can be used for any purpose they chose to utilize the land for. The Tahsildar, passed an endorsement in RC.NO.165/2022/B, dated 28.12.2022, directing the eviction of the appellants from the property. The contention of the appellants was that the said land is the private property of the appellants which can be used for any purpose they chose to utilize the land for. The Tahsildar, passed an endorsement in RC.NO.165/2022/B, dated 28.12.2022, directing the eviction of the appellants from the property. The appellants, had then approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.1235 of 2023 contending that the Tahsildar, without going into any of the contentions raised in the reply had passed the impugned endorsement in RC.No.165/2022/B, dated 28.12.2022. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 20.01.2023, had granted interim suspension of the said order. 5. Subsequently, a learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the submissions made on both sides had dismissed the Writ petition, by way of an order dated 05.06.2025, granting liberty to the appellants to approach the appropriate forum for seeking legal remedies if so advised. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this Court. 6. The learned Single Judge held that the respondents are bound to implement the directions of the Division Bench, passed in W.P(PIL).108 of 2022 and Batch, which includes W.P(PIL).105 of 2022 and consequently there cannot be a direction from this Court which would be contrary to the said judgment. 7. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Devalaraju, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the case of the appellants is that the land is private land belonging to the appellants and as such they cannot be evicted from the said land. Apart from this, the findings of the respondent authorities, that the land is part of a lake and cannot be treated as patta land is in direct contradiction to the findings of the Land Reforms Tribunal, the land Reforms Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It is contended that this aspect of the matter has not been gone into and the respondents are blindly passing orders without considering the factual aspects. 9. A perusal of the order of the Tahsildar, dated 28.12.2022, reveals the following facts; The entire extent of Ac.92.81 cents of land in Sy.No.329 of Kalyandurg Village is patta land which originally stood in the name of three persons. 9. A perusal of the order of the Tahsildar, dated 28.12.2022, reveals the following facts; The entire extent of Ac.92.81 cents of land in Sy.No.329 of Kalyandurg Village is patta land which originally stood in the name of three persons. Though the land is patta land, an extent of 25-30% of the said land gets submerged on account of over flow of water from ‘subedar cheruvu’ which is adjacent :to this land on the southern side. Initially the over flow was an account of the rains during the rainy season and that the water would recede, by way of evaporation, after the rainy season. However, at present, the land remains permanently water logged as the drainage water of Kalyandurg Municipality being let out into the Subedar Kunta is overflowing into this land. The Tahsildar also records the findings of the Land Reforms Tribunal, which had stated that the land remains agricultural land of the declarants as they can conduct agricultural and ancillary operations during the days when the'water recedes from this land. After noticing these facts and recording that the land is the private property of the persons who are in possession of the said land, it was also observed that the pattedars of this land are seeking to fill their land with soil and clay brought from other places and in fact one JCB and three tippers, which were involved in this activity, had also been seized earlier. 10. The facts, which are undisputed, as can be seen from the rival submissions are that The land which has been purchased by the appellants and which is in their possession is private patta land. However, this land is under submergence on account of its proximity the ‘Subedar Kunta’ due to which excess water in this water body flows into the aforesaid land of the appellants. 11. In the circumstances, the contention of the appellants that they own the land would have to be upheld. However, the stand of the respondents that the said land cannot be converted into house sites by filling up the land also requires to be accepted as the appellants cannot fill up a natural water body. 12. 11. In the circumstances, the contention of the appellants that they own the land would have to be upheld. However, the stand of the respondents that the said land cannot be converted into house sites by filling up the land also requires to be accepted as the appellants cannot fill up a natural water body. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that in the normal course of events, water used to recede from the area, after the rainy season but there is a continuous stagnation of water on account of the unregulated discharge of drainage effluents from Kalyandurg Municipality. He would submit that it is the responsibility of the Kalyandurg Municipality to divert such drainage water and not allow the drainage water to come into the lands of the appellants. 13. The aforesaid contention of the appellants, cannot be gone into in the present case as the present case is restricted to the question of whether the appellants can convert the land, belonging to them, in Sy.No.329-3, into house sites. It is left open to the appellants to seek redress of this grievance, before the appropriate forum. This Court would have to hold that such conversion is not permissible as this is a natural water body and the appellants, cannot convert such water body into house sites, by filling up the water body. At best, the appellants would only have a right to be in occupation of the land and carry on such agricultural or other activities which would not interfere with the character of the land as being subject to periodic submergence. 14. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of holding that though the appellants cannot be evicted from the said land, there would be no restriction on the respondents requiring the appellants to remove any encroachment into the land and also to remove such debris, soil and clay that may be dumped into this land for the purpose of creating house sites. In the event of non compliance of such a direction, it would always be open to the respondents to take up that task. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.