HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11876 of 2010 Date: 10.10.2011 Between: G.Narasimhulu and another. ..... Petitioners AND The Government of A.P., Reptd by its District Collector-cum-Ex Officio Chairman, Irrigation and CAD Department, Hyderabad And three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri T.C.Krishnan Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Irrigation and CAD Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri P.Jagadish Chandra Prasad The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in directing the petitioners to stop installation of motor and pipes of the new bore-well in Sy.No.91/16 of Kollur Village, SR Puram Mandal, Chittoor District, over an extent of Ac.0.05 cents, at the instance of respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri P.Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The petitioners are the owners of certain lands in Sy.No.91/16 including an extent of Ac.0.05 cents, which was given to their father as D-Form Patta in the year 1978. They have dug an open well in the said land long time back. As the said well has dried up, they made a representation on 13.04.2010 to respondent No.3 seeking permission for digging a bore-well over an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.91/16. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that respondent No.3 has not passed any order and as the paddy crop was drying up, they have sunk a bore-well by spending substantial sum ranging between Rs.60,000/- and Rs.70,000/-. When the petitioners sought to install the motor and lay the pipes of the new bore-well, respondent No.4 appeared to have complained to respondent No.3 that sinking of bore-well by the petitioners will adversely affect his existing open well. Acting upon the said complaint, respondent No.3 has orally directed the petitioners to stop using the bore-well. Feeling aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. None of the official respondents have filed their counter-affidavits. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that he has occupied the Government land classified as ‘Kalva Poramboke’ and has been carrying on agricultural activity therein by sinking an open well. As the bore-well sunk by the petitioners will have an adverse effect on his well, he has given a complaint to respondent No.3. It is further stated that a quarrel between his family and the petitioners’ family also ensued leading to registration of F.I.R.No.44 of 2010, dated 05.06.2010, against the petitioners and their family members, on his complaint. A perusal of the letter vide Roc.No.B/125/2010, dated 07.05.2010, addressed by respondent No.3 to the Deputy Director, Ground Water Department, Chittoor, shows that adjacent to the petitioners’ bore-well, there are two open wells in existence in Sy.No.104-Kalva Poramboke, out of which, one belongs to the petitioners and the other belongs to respondent No.4. Respondent No.3 has further stated in the said letter that both the open wells have dried up. He has requested the Deputy Director to send feasibility report on the drilling of bore-well by the petitioners in Sy.No.91/16. Under the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, the petitioners have to obtain permission for digging the bore-well. Evidently, the petitioners have approached respondent No.3 and when no decision thereon was taken, they have dug the bore-well by spending huge money. While directing the petitioners not to install the motor and lay the pipes of the new bore-well, respondent No.3 has directed the Deputy Director, Ground Water Department, Chittoor, to send feasibility report on the bore-well already dug by the petitioners. In the instant case, the undeniable fact is that the action is initiated by respondent No.3 on the objection raised by respondent No.4, who admittedly is in occupation of Government land without any authority and has also sunk an open well over the said land classified as ‘Kalva Poramboke’. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners’ bore-well is in close proximity of any public water source and the same will adversely affect such source. In this fact situation, I am of the opinion that any interference at this stage as to the operation of the bore-well by the petitioners on the objection of respondent No.4, who is himself in occupation of Government land, would cause irreparable injury to the petitioners’ interest. The petitioners being farmers will suffer huge financial loss, if they are prevented from using the bore-well on the objection of respondent No.4. It would be grossly iniquitous if respondent No.3 causes interference with the operation of the bore-well by the petitioners, at the instance of respondent No.4, who failed to establish his right over the existing open well or the land which is in his occupation. More over, as per the report of respondent No.3, the open well of respondent No.4 has already dried up and it will hardly make any difference if the petitioners are permitted to use the bore-well. If respondent No.4 is in need of water, the only alternative available to him is to sink a bore-well of his own. In the above circumstances, the respondents are restrained from interfering with the bore-well already dug by the petitioners. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.14988 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous and W.V.M.P.No.2232 of 2010 filed by the respondents is dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th October 2011 DR