THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10787 of 2005 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioners, who were the owners and possessors of the lands admeasuring Ac.0.43 cents, Ac.0.40 cents, Ac.0.19 cents, Ac.0.38 cents, Ac.0.17 cents, Ac.0.09 cents, Ac.0.32 cents, Ac.0.29 cents, Ac.0.15 cents, Ac.0.14 cents and Ac.0.11 cents covered by Survey Nos.1782/1, 1782/2, 1783/1 to 6, 1774/4, 4B and 5 respectively, situated at Mallelacheruvu Village, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District, seek a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to sink a bore well near to their bore well, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners and possessors of the subject lands, which are being used for agricultural purposes. It is stated that as there was a drought in 1997, they sunk a bore well, which catered their needs up to 2001, and subsequently, as the said bore well dried up, they sunk another bore well in 2003 and it was also dried up and subsequently, they sunk another bore well in the land covered by Survey No.1783/2 and at present, they are using the same for domestic as well as agricultural purposes. It is their grievance that the respondents are taking steps to sink a bore well within the distance of 100 feet from their bore well in violation of the distance restrictions as contemplated under Section 10(1) of the Act. At the first instance, while issuing notice before admission, this Court vide order, dated 29.04.2005, permitted the petitioners to raise objections before the second respondent and further, directed the second respondent to consider the same and take action in accordance with law. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted on 16.06.2005 and notice was issued. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. When the matter is taken up, today, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the second and third respondents has produced before this Court para- wise remarks sent to him, and stated that the petitioners sunk a bore well in 2003 without obtaining any permission from the authority concerned as required under the provisions of the Act. It is further stated that there was a representation from the residents of Mallelacheruvu Dalitha Wada, where 138 families are living, requesting to sink another bore well for the purpose of drinking water, as the existing bore wells dried up. It is further stated that basing on the report of the Geologist of Rural Water Supply, the bore well was sunk in the land, which is classified as Government poramboke, covered by Survey No.1786. It is also stated that the said bore well was sunk in the interest of public at Dalitha Wada for the purpose of drinking water. Even according to the petitioners, they sunk bore well in Survey No.1783/2 subsequent to 2003. However, their affidavit is silent with regard to the permission to sink such bore well. Contrary, it is the specific case of the respondents that there was no permission obtained by the petitioners before sinking the bore well in the land covered by Survey No.1783/2. Although the exact distance between the bore wells sunk by the petitioners and the respondents in the lands covered by Survey Nos.1783/2 and 1786 respectively, for the purpose of drinking water, is not known, as much as the petitioners sunk the bore well in violation of the provisions of the Act, without obtaining any permission, they are not entitled to any relief in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complaining that the respondents are trying to sink bore well in violation of the provisions of the Act. The bore well sunk by the petitioners cannot be treated as lawful within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act, as such, distance restrictions as contemplated under Section 10(1) of the Act cannot be applied for the bore well sunk by the respondents. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any valid ground in the writ petition for grant of relief as prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th JULY, 2010. kvni