IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 9069 of 2009 Between: Bonthala Kotaiah S/o. Chinna Lingaiah R/o. Venkatapuram Village, Nidamanoor Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nalgonda District at Nalgonda. 2 The Tahsildar, Nidamanoor Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 Sk. Rasool Bee W/o. Lateef Saheb R/o. Marupaka Village, Nidamanoor Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....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 to issue a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs orders or direction declaring the order dt. 31-3-209 in D.No. 1160/2009 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of WALTA Act 2002 award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9069 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the order dated 31.03.2009 in D.No.1160 of 2009 passed by respondent No.2, the Tahsildar, as arbitrary and illegal. It appears that a complaint was made by respondent No.3, smt. Sk. Rasool Bee, W/o. Lateef Sab, R/o. Marupaka village, complaining that the petitioner has dug a bore well within 30 feet of the bore well existing in her field. Therefore, pumping of water from her bore well has come down. As a result, the citrus (Lemon) garden raised by her is being dried up. On the said complaint, the Mandal Revenue Officer seems to have conducted an enquiry and gave a finding that the bore well was dug by the petitioner within 36 feet from the bore well of respondent No.3 and also opined that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002. Therefore, the said bore well dug by the petitioner was seized. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1, the District Collector, Nalgonda. Along with the appeal the petitioner also filed an application seeking stay of the order passed by respondent No.2. As the same was not taken up for consideration, the present writ petition is filed. While, admitting the writ petition on 29.04.2009 it was directed that “in the mean time, the petitioner shall be entitled to operate the borewell on alternate days, duly informing respondent Nos. 2 and 3”. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merits, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Tahsildhar, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and till such time the interim order passed by this court on 29.04.2009 shall continue and the order passed by Tahsildhar dated 31.03.2009 shall not be given effect to. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 3rd August, 2009 MD/KSH