IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD (23RD) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.5796 of 2010 Between: Marla Vajaramma & another … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.5796 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in Cr.No.85 of 2010 of Kattanguru PS, Nalgonda district. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents-State. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein-Tahsildar, Kattanguru Mandal, gave a report to the Inspector of Police, Nakrekal on 15.06.2010 alleging that one Mandala Venkataiah has been cultivating his land in Sy.No.398 by laying a bore well in his land since three years and that the petitioners-A.1 and A.2 who are the neighbouring land owners in Sy.No.399 have fixed a bore well on the night of 06.05.2010 at a distance of 15 meters from the bore well of M. Venkataiah and that the Village Revenue Officer and the Mandal Revenue Inspector seized the bore well of the petitioners on 07.05.2010 in the presence of panchas, as the said bore well was laid in violation of the provisions of the Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short ‘the WALTA Act’). It is further alleged that in spite of seizing of bore well, the petitioners were found running the same on 09.06.2010 without any permission. Based on the above complaint of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the police registered a case in Cr.No.85 of 2010 against the petitioners for the offence under Section 188 IPC and Section 34 of the WALTA Act. 4. Section 34 of the WALTA Act has no application at all for the reason that the said provision is meant to grant protection of action taken in good faith by the public servants. Section 34 of the WALTA Act does not contemplate any offence and it is not understandable how the FIR was registered under Section 34 of the WALTA Act, which has no application at all. It only shows the total lack of application of mind on the part of the concerned police officials, who registered the FIR. The report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, based on which the FIR was registered does not disclose as to how and in what manner the provisions of the WALTA Act have been violated nor the commission of any offence under the WALTA Act. What all stated in the report is that the petitioners have laid bore well at a distance of 15 meters from the bore well of one M. Venkataiah. It is not disclosed as to how laying of bore well by the petitioners in their own land amounts to violation of any provisions of the WALTA Act or constitutes any offence under the WALTA Act. The report does not also disclose that the petitioners were served with any notice under Section 15(2) of the WALTA Act by the revenue authorities before the seizure or closure of the bore well in the land of the petitioners. In the absence of such notice, the alleged seizure of the bore well by the 2nd respondent is clearly illegal and arbitrary. 5. In ‘P. Narayana Reddy vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Morthad Mandal, Nizamabad[1]’, this Court held as follows: “A plain reading of Section 15 would show that when it is brought to the notice of the authorities and that the provisions of the Act have been contravened in sinking a bore well, a provisional order has to be passed requiring owner or the person in possession of the well to close or seal off the well. When the provisional order is not complied with, the authority under the Act may then have to issue the owner or person due notice in that behalf and pass order to close or seal off the well. The requirement of issuing notice is conspicuous by its passing under sub-section (1) of Section 15. Though sub-section (2) of Section 15 specifically require the authority to give a notice to the owner or the person using the bore well before passing order of closure or seizure. Reading sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 together, this Court is of the considered opinion that the requirement of notice would be read into sub-section (1) of Section 15 as well.” It was further held as follows: “Rule 15 of the Rules authorizes any authority by a general or special order and in case of emergency so as to ensure supply of drinking water to local population take over such bore well in which event the owner of the bore well will be entitled to be compensated for the agreed loss. The only situation where without notice the bore well can be seized is to ensure the supply of drinking water to the local population in emergency. That being the position, the issuance of notice before passing provisional order under Section 15(1) of the Act must be held as mandatory requirement.” 6. In ‘Bodapati Markonda Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[2]’, the Division Bench of this Court held that ‘the appellant should succeed on the ground that principles of natural justice had been violated and even the statutory notice required to be served upon him had not been served under Section 15(1) of the Act’. 7. In the present case also, no notice has been served on the petitioners. The panchanama dated 07.05.2010 does not also disclose that any notice was served on the petitioners before the seizure of the bore well. In the circumstances, it must be held that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the contents of the FIR do not make out even prima-facie any offence under the provisions of the WALTA Act. When the alleged seizure of the bore well itself is not shown to have been effected in the manner prescribed by law, the question of violation of order of seizure amounting to an offence under Section 188 IPC does not arise. Section 188 IPC is invoked against the petitioners as a sequel to the alleged commission of offence under the provisions of the WALTA Act. When no offence is shown to have been committed under the provisions of the WALTA Act, the consequential induction of section 188 of IPC does not also arise. 8. In the circumstances, as the complaint does not disclose even prima-facie any offence, it is considered to be a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings in FIR No.85 of 2010 of Kattanguru PS, Nalgonda district and they are accordingly quashed. It is, however, open to the authorities to initiate appropriate legal action against the petitioners under the relevant provisions of the Act, in case they are found to have violated the provisions of the WALTA Act or committed any offence under the provisions of the said Act. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed as stated above. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 23.11.2010 bss [1] 2004 ALD (6) 653 [2] 2009 ALT (5) 112