THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P. No.4682 of 2010 ORDER: This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur in C.M.A. No.9 of 2009 dated 20.07.2010. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the Suit. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent- plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In the plaint it is specifically stated that, in the month of January, 2007, the plaintiff had got the land surveyed and fixed the boundaries; and he had dug a bore well therein in February, 2007 spending huge amounts, on the western side of the plaint schedule property. The Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira refused to grant injunction as prayed for, against which the respondent-plaintiff carried the matter in appeal resulting in the order, under challenge in this revision proceedings, being passed. The appellate Court framed two questions. 1. Whether the lower Court had properly adjudicated about the situation of the bore-well as contended by the petitioner under Ex.P-7? 2. Whether the lower Court erred in giving a finding that for digging a bore well permission is required under A.P. Water Land Trees Rules, 2004? With regards Point No.1, the appellate Court held that the Advocate Commissioner’s report showed that the bore well was situated in the petition schedule land. On Point No.2, the appellate Court held that the petitioner before this Court had not shown any authority that, for digging the bore well, necessary permission was required under the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (2002 Act) nor was any material produced to show that he had to obtain such permission from such authority in digging the bore-well. The appellate Court allowed the appeal, in effect, granting temporary injunction as sought for. Sri P. Narahari Babu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would draw attention of this Court to Rule 13(1) of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (hereinafter called the Rules) in support of his submission that prior permission of the authority having jurisdiction is required to be obtained before a bore-well can be dug. On the other hand, Sri T.C.D. Sekhar, Learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, would contend that, since there is no dispute regarding the situs of the bore-well, (which, according to the Advocate Commissioner’s report, is located in the respondent- plaintiff’s land), the appellate Court was justified in granting injunction; and the remedy of the petitioner-defendant was to seek redressal of his grievance, for violation of Rule 13(1), under the said Rules alone, and not in a petition for injunction before the Civil Court. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act the Rules were made which came into force, on its being published in the A.P. Gazette, on 06.11.2004. Rule 12 relates to Registration of Wells. Every owner of the well is required to register the well as per Section 8(2) of the Act by way of an application giving details as stipulated in Form-I. The procedure for obtaining permission for digging new wells is stipulated under Rule 13. Under sub-rule 1(i) thereof any person or institution desiring to dig a new well of any kind in their premises should obtain permission by submitting to the Authority having jurisdiction over the area, an application in Form 2 and 5 together with a fee prescribed by the authority. The designated officer, after examining the application and satisfying himself about compliance of the various provisions of the 2002 Act, is required to give his recommendation to the authority who is then required to dispose of the application. Rule 14 prescribes conditions for grant of permission for sinking of a well. Even according to the plaint averments, the bore-well was dug in February, 2007 much after the Rules came into force on 06.11.2004. The statutory stipulation of obtaining prior permission, in terms of Rules 13(1) of the Rules, has admittedly not been complied with. The Appellate Court has, therefore, erred in rejecting this contention. The contention that the petitioner has a remedy under the Act and the Rules and, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Court, has only to be noted to be rejected. The jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is supervisory. This Court is obligated to interfere wherever substantial injustice would otherwise ensue. Failure to comply with the law would necessitate intervention by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Appellate Court has erred in allowing the appeal and, in effect, granting injunction as prayed for. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, in C.M.A. No. 9 of 2009 dated 20.07.2010 is set aside. ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 08.07.2011 MRKR