IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 21014 of 2005 Between: M. Govindaiah S/o. Late M. Sankaraiah, Koduru, Aravapalle (M), Nalgonda (District) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda, 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgona Revenue Division, Nalgonda, 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Aravalli Mandal, Nalgonda District, 4 Desagani Ellaiah S/o. D. Venkaiah R/o. Koduru (V), Aravapalli (M), Nalgonda District, .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 the issue appropriate writ order or directions more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not initiating any action against respondent No.4 as contemplated under Sec. 15 of the act. as illegal, And consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate action in closing the illegal well of the respondent no. 4 by invoking sec. 15 of A P Water, Land and Trees act. 2002, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SYEDMOOSA KAZEEM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 21014 of 2005 24-02-2009 Oral Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. There is no appearance on behalf of the 4th respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not initiated any action against the 4th respondent despite transgression by the 4th respondent of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land & Trees Act, 2002. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 16-02-2009 stating that the bore well dug by the 4th respondent in close proximity of the bore well of the petitioner was seized along with the starter and electrical wire connected to the main line as early as on 07-10-2005 and that thereafter this offending bore well of the 4th respondent is not in use and has not been used after seizure. In the light of this averment by the 1st respondent, the grievance of the writ petitioner does not any longer subsist. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as ‘infructuous’. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 24-02-2009 Pvks