The witness for Andhra Pradesh in the ongoing hearing before the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal on the sharing of Krishna water by Telangana and AP, P.V. Satyanarayana, an agriculture scientist, has admitted to discrepancies in his affidavits on gross irrigation requirement, crop duration and other aspects of paddy cultivation in the Krishna Basin areas of AP.
Following his intensive probing on the aspect of crop duration in the Krishna Basin areas by senior counsel for Telangana C.S. Vaidyanathan, Mr. Satyanarayana, who is the Director of AP Rice Research Institute, submitted to the tribunal in New Delhi on Wednesday that he would verify and furnish different documents.
Fresh worksheets
He also told the tribunal that he would submit fresh worksheets on crop water requirement on Thursday.
A senior irrigation engineer of Telangana who was present at the hearing told The Hindu over phone that the AP’s witness had to admit to the false information provided by him in three affidavits and worksheets submitted on September 7, 2017, January 22, 2018 and February 19, 2018 as his argument and documentary evidence were in contradiction.
After repeated questions on the study undertaken by him “to ascertain the actual field conditions prevailing in the areas”, as mentioned in his affidavit, the AP’s witness admitted before the tribunal that he did not visit the command areas of Nagarjunasagar Right and Left Canals personally after July 2017, when he was asked to depose before the tribunal as a witness for the AP government.
He stated that he had prepared his study report based on his past experience as an agriculture scientist and the relevant records of latest (2017-18) ‘vyavasaya panchangam’ (agriculture almanac) prepared and released by AP and not based on the actual field study carried out after July 2017.
Rainfall dependent
After stating that he had personally seen standing paddy crop in Eluru, Vijayawada, Gudiwada, Pamarru, Guntur, Ponnur and Kankipadu after July 2017 and that it was cultivated during June last week and July first week, Mr. Satyanarayana said the cultivation was done with rainfall and water was not received either from Prakasam Barrage or Pattiseema project. He, however, did not substantiate his claim on the rainfall during the period.
Further, the AP’s witness said he would verify when asked whether water was released from Nagarjunasagar during June-October period in 2017.
Mr. Satyanarayana did not explain the discrepancy, when asked whether the irrigation engineers of combined AP, who stated in the modernisation report that the crop growing period in Krishna Delta System was 112 days to 122 days, wilfully prepared a false report since he (the AP’s witness) had stated that the crop duration was long from 145 days to 150 days.
