THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9881 of 2003 Dated:19.08.2009 Between: T.Prabhakar Reddy. ….Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9881 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner purchased a house site bearing plot No.31/part in Survey Nos.42 and 43 of Ramanthapur Village under registered sale deed dated 18.11.1984. He dug a bore well up to 150 feet deep. He provides water from this bore well to different types of establishments and industries in the city as well as surrounding areas. On 28.03.1995 second respondent issued the notice to the petitioner to stop drawing water and supplying the same to others and threatened to confiscate machinery. The petitioner filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.6348 of 1995, and obtained interim orders on 04.04.1995. Subsequently, it is alleged, purporting to acting on the advice of the first respondent, second respondent disconnected power supply to meter No.107231/3 PH connected to the bore well. Petitioner again assailed the same in W.P.No.25720 of 1999. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 21.12.1999 directing the second respondent to reconnect the power supply on condition of the petitioner depositing electricity arrears. It is the case of the petitioner that again the first respondent came to the bore well on 13.05.2003, removed the pipe and wires supplying the power as well as the keyboard. When the petitioner approached the first respondent, it is alleged that the Mandal Revenue Officer informed him that the petitioner contravened the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (the Act, for brevity). Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from interfering with the petitioner’s drawal. First respondent has not filed any counter affidavit even after lapse of six years. Be that as it is, the Act contemplates prior permission from the competent authority, if a Well is dug near public water source or a bore well is dug for agricultural purposes in the notified area within a prohibited distance. In this case, it appears, no such notice was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the petitioner alleging contravention of the provisions of the Act. Section 15 of the Act empowers the authority to order closure of wells if water is extracted in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Even here, there appears to be no such action initiated by the first respondent. A reference may also be made to Rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Rules (the Rules, for brevity), which empowers the authority to take over drinking water wells by a special or general order to ensure supply of drinking water to local population. Even in such an event a notice is required to be given requisitioning the well for a specified period. The first respondent appears to have ignored all these provisions. In view of the uncontroverted petition allegations and also the legal position as indicated briefly hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of observing that the respondents herein shall not interfere with the petitioner’s activity in relation to the bore well dug in plot No.31/part at Ramanthapur Village (survey Nos.42 and 43) unless and until necessary procedure contemplated under the Act as well as the Rules made thereunder is followed and action is taken as per the law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 19.08.2009 vs