THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17798 of 2008 ORDER: Though the matter is listed under the caption ‘interlocutory’, as it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that as the impugned order is passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the matter can be remitted back for fresh consideration, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing and being disposed of by this order. In the Writ Petition, petitioner questioned order, dated 26.07.2008 passed by the first respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, in Roc.B1/3908/2007, by which, the bore well dug by him in Survey No.401 of Pitchalavandlapalle, was ordered to be seized with the direction to the second respondent - Tahsildar, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District, to prohibit the petitioner as well as the third respondent from operating such bore well. It is the case of the petitioner that he has dug the bore well in the land in Survey No.401 of Pitchalavandlapalle Village and when he noticed that it is a poramboke land, he applied for grant of patta on payment of market value. At the same time, the third respondent objected for transfer of the land and also the bore well dug by him in the aforesaid Survey Number. While considering the claim of the petitioner as well as the objections of the third respondent, the impugned order is passed for seizure of the bore well and further, prohibiting the petitioner and the third respondent from operating the bore well. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is passed without issuing any notice to him. Although the Writ Petition is of 2008, no counter-affidavit is filed but when the matter is taken up today, it is represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that there is no record to show that a notice was given to the petitioner before ordering seizure of the bore well dug by him. Digging of the bore well and its regulatory mechanism are covered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). Section 15 of the Act empowers the authorities for seizure of any material and also for closure of bore wells. However, under Section 15(2) of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the competent authority to give notice to the person, who is affected by closure of such bore well. As much as it is not in dispute that no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, this Court is of the view that order, dated 26.07.2008 passed in Roc.B1/3908/2007 is liable to be set aside on that short ground. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the observations referred to above and the order under challenge is set aside. However, it is open to the competent authority under the Act for passing appropriate orders after giving notice of hearing to the petitioner as well as the third respondent. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st AUGUST, 2011. kvni