THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4332 of 2003 December 13, 2010 Between: B.Sankar Reddy, S/o.B.Musala Reddy ...Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rapthadu Mandal, Ananthapur District and others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4332 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner is statedly owner of agricultural land in S.No.30/P (Acs.3.32), 27/P (Acs.4.95), 26/P (Acs.0.83) and 31/P (Acs.5.15½) situated at Bommeparthy village of Rapthadu Mandal in Ananthapur District. Fourth respondent is his brother. The latter gave a complaint to the first respondent alleging that both the brothers dug borewell in S.No.30 for joint use, but the petitioner dug another borewell at a distance of about 78 feet to his detriment. In response thereto, first respondent addressed a letter Rc.No.06/2003/B, dated 21.2.2003 to the third respondent to take immediate necessary action to prevent clashes between petitioner and fourth respondent. Second respondent was also requested to disconnect power supply to the borewell. Aggrieved by the said direction issued by the first respondent, present writ petition is filed. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 12.3.2003 passed interim orders directing the respondents 2 and 3 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner. The first respondent filed counter affidavit relying on the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land & Trees Act, 2002 (WALTA). It is stated that digging a borewell without obtaining permission is an offence under Section 35 of WALTA and, therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 15 of WALTA, impugned directions were issued. The second respondent also filed counter affidavit which is to the effect that on the directions of first respondent, power supply was disconnected to the borewell of petitioner. This Court heard the Counsel for petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-Andhra Area). As rightly submitted by the petitioner, seizure of a borewell which is allegedly dug illegally or seizure of borewell for the purpose of providing drinking water to the villagers are permitted under WALTA. But while doing so the Mandal authority under WALTA must necessarily follow the principles of natural justice. This Court in P.Narayana Reddy v Mandal Revenue Officer, Morthad Mandal, Nizamabad[1] held that even though Rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Rules, 2002 (the Rules, for brevity) does not contemplate prior notice when a borewell is taken over “to ensure supply of drinking water to local population”, still formal notice should be given to owner of the borewell. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Following the above, the impugned order is set aside giving liberty to the Government authority to conduct enquiry after giving notice to the petitioner and fourth respondent to take appropriate action if necessary. The writ petition is accordingly allowed without any order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) December 13, 2010 YS [1] 2004 (6) ALD 653