HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 987 OF 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that respondent No.3 is not a necessary party and, therefore, he may be permitted to be deleted. He has further submitted that even while hearing the writ petition, no notice was issued to respondent No. 3 before the petition was rejected. 2. Permission for deletion of respondent No. 3 is granted. Respondent No.3 stands deleted. 3. Admit. At the request of the learned advocates, the appeal is finally heard today. 4. The appellant – original petitioner has been aggrieved by an order dated 02-07-2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 13020 of 2009, whereby his petition praying for quashing the proceedings dated 19- 06-2009 on the file of respondent No.2 had been rejected. 5. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the appellant – petitioner owns a borewell. By an order dated 19-06-2009, the Mandal Revenue Inspector was directed to seize the borewell dug by the appellant without issuance of notice to him under Section 15 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act') and that, such an order could not have been passed by respondent No.2. 6. The learned single Judge rejected the petition for the reason that the appellant has already challenged the validity of the aforestated order passed by respondent No. 2 by filing an appeal. The learned single Judge observed that after having pursued the statutory remedy, the appellant ought not to have filed the petition. 7. At the time of hearing of this appeal, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that no notice as required under the provisions of Section 15 (1) of the Act was served upon the appellant before the impugned order was passed by respondent No.2. 8. In view of the aforestated admitted fact, even though the appellant has already filed a statutory appeal, we are of the view 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 by respondent No.2. 9. For the aforestated reason, we quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge and the order dated 19-06-2009 passed by respondent No.2 with a liberty to the respondent authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the appellant in relation to his digging of the borewell in violation of the provisions of the Act. 10. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 6th August, 2009. ks