IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 13815 of 2007 Between: K.N.Anki Reddy, S/o. Papi Reddy, Hindu, R/o.Kalugotla Village, Veldurthi Mandal, Kurnool Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Kurva Thimmanna, S/o.Bojjanna, R/o.Kalugotla Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool Dist. 2 The Dist Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool Dist. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records connected with the impugned order in Rc.D7/24/2006, dt.25- 4-2006 passed by the 2nd respondent an quash the same by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction preferable one in the nature of writ of certiorari and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VENKATA RAM REDDY PANDUGA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 13815 of 2007 O r d e r: The writ petition is ﬁled questioning the order of the 2nd respondent - District Collector, Kurnool District, dated 25.4.2006 under which, the bore well dug by the petitioner in his land in Survey Nos.173/2 of Kalugotla village, was seized. The brief facts of the case leading to ﬁling the present writ petition, are that the petitioner is a small farmer and he dug a bore well in his land to a depth of 180 feet and at a distance of 70 feet away from the bore well of the 1st respondent in February, 1996 for the purpose of irrigating his lands. On the complaint made by the 1st respondent alleging that due to bore well dug by the petitioner, his bore well got dried up, the matter was enquired into and the 3rd respondent sent a report seeking permission to remove the bore-well of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner dug the bore well in contravention of the provisions of the AP Ground Water (Regulation for Drinking Water Purposes) Act No.7 of 1996. Subsequently, as no action was taken, the 1st respondent ﬁled a petition before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent passed the order impugned directing the 3rd respondent to arrange an iron cap to close the bore well of the petitioner. In spite of admission of the writ petition and service of notices, none appeared for the 1st respondent and no counter- affidavit is filed. Heard the learned Counsel and the Government Pleader perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the order impugned, it is obvious that there was a complaint made by the 1st respondent herein on the ground that a bore well was dug by the petitioner adjacent to his bore well at a distance of 35 feet, as a result of which, the potentiality of the ground water in his bore well was completely diminished. The matter was enquired into and in this connection, the M.R.O. submitted a report and the Joint Collector inspected the premises and observed that the 1st respondent dug a bore well in his agricultural land in Sy.No.67/2 in the year 1996 to a depth of 150 feet and thereafter, the petitioner also dug a bore well to a depth of 180 feet in his land in Sy.No.173/2 after six months gap, at a distance of 21 mts. from the bore well of the 1st respondent, as a result of which, the potentiality of the ground water of the well of the 1st respondent, was diminished and consequently, the crops in the land of the 1st respondent dried and hence, frequent quarrels took place. In this regard, the Deputy Director of Ground Water Department has opined that in the interest of public to streamline the existing system, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Veldurthy has sought permission for removal of the existing bore well of the petitioner and hence, the Collector granted permission to seize the petitioner’s bore well, which was dug in violation of the specific norms of the Act. When the matter came up, it is argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader that as per the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.12758 of 2007, dated 25.7.2007, there must be a speciﬁc notiﬁcation under Section 11 (1) of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and the Government has to issue a notiﬁcation prohibiting sinking of well/bore-well in the over exploited area only for a period of six months at a time and in the present case, there is no reference about such notiﬁcation and under the circumstances, the order impugned is bad in law. There is no material on record to show that there is any prohibition as to the digging of bore wells in the area in question. Apart from that, it is pertinent to note that the appellate-authority viz., District Level Committee is the competent authority to pass orders in this regard. Now, coming to the aspect of digging of bore well by the petitioner, the order impugned does not disclose about the speciﬁc violations made by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that due to seizure of the bore well, he is unable to cultivate his lands since last two years. Under the above circumstances, the order impugned is set aside. The District Collector is directed to reexamine the issue after obtaining necessary reports from the Ground Water Department as well as the M.R.O. and taking into consideration, the notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act, if any issued prohibiting the digging of the bore wells in the area of the petitioner on the ground of over exploitation, and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the unoﬃcial respondent. This exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 16th October, 2008. Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 13815 of 2007 16.10.2008