IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11097 of 2010 Between: J. Padmavathi. ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector-cum-District Level Authority, A.P. Walta Act, Anantapur & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri N. Aswartha Narayana Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11097 of 2010 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. There is no representation for respondent No.3. Feeling aggrieved by notice dated 18.04.2010 issued by respondent No.2, the present writ petition is filed. By the said notice, issued under the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act”), the petitioner was called upon to submit her explanation as to why her bore wells shall not be seized. In her affidavit, the petitioner alleged that in response to the said notice, she has submitted her explanation and that even before an appropriate order was passed, respondent No.2, under the influence of respondent No.3, was making attempts to seize the bore wells, constraining her to file the present writ petition. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3. In his counter affidavit, respondent No.2 has narrated the facts that have led to the issuance of the impugned notice. Respondent No.2 has maintained that the petitioner has drilled two new bore wells within a distance of 180 meters from the land of respondent No.3 in Sy.No.275/5 in violation of the provisions of the Act. In my opinion, the writ petition is premature because no order in pursuance of the impugned notice has been passed by respondent No.2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that respondent No.2 has not made any attempt to seize the bore well before considering the explanation of the petitioner and passing an order. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s explanation stated to have been submitted in response to notice dated 18.04.2010 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Till then, the respondents shall not interfere with the right of the petitioner to use the bore wells. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.14141 of 2010 and WVMP.Nos.2601 and 3946 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.09.2010 ES