HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.12701 of 2011 Date: April 28, 2011 Between: P. Rama Mohan … Petitioner And 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & 4 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.12701 of 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition has been preferred questioning the order of the second respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur, dated 19th April 2011, setting at naught the orders passed earlier by the Revenue Divisional officer, Dharmavaram on 29th March 2011. The petitioner has also called in question the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Beluguppa Mandal seizing the bore well said to have been dug by the petitioner herein unauthorizedly. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State Government, the competent authority, exercised power available to it under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, and declared that the ground water basins covering 4003 villages mentioned in the annexure to the said notification as over exploited. For a period of six months from the date of publication of the notification, hence, in terms of sub-section 3 of Section 11 of the aforementioned Act, no well can be sunk in those areas except for public drinking purposes. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Narsapuram village of Beluguppa Mandal was not one of the notified villages and hence the prohibition against digging bore well is not applicable. However, the District Collector entertained the representation submitted by the 5th respondent herein and passed orders on 19th April 2011 setting aside the orders earlier passed by the Revenue Divisional officer on 29th March 2011 restoring the bore well dug by the petitioner subject to the petitioner paying a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The District Collector has pointed out that against the orders passed by the Tahsildar it is the District Collector, who is the appellate authority, but not the Revenue Divisional Officer and hence the Revenue Divisional Officer has no power or jurisdiction to pass the orders which he did on 29th March 2011. However, the Collector has also passed the impugned order without putting the writ petitioner on notice. 3. It is fundamental principle of law that no person should be condemned behind his back. It is therefore only appropriate that the orders passed by the District Collector on 19th April 2011 should be set aside. It is open to the petitioner to approach the District Collector, Anantapur, preferring an appeal against the orders of the Tahsildar, Beluguppa Mandal, seizing the bore well dug by him within a period of one week from today. Upon the writ petitioner approaching the District Collector, the District Collector will examine whether the village in which the petitioner dug the bore well is one such notified as a over exploited village with regard to the ground water or not and then pass appropriate orders on the said appeal of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within thirty (30) days. All other contentions, which the petitioner can possibly raise, are preserved for being raised before the District Collector for his consideration. 4. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: April 28, 2011. Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. //B.O.// BSB