IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3861 of 2005 Between: Gaddam Shivavva ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Nizamabad and 4 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3861 of 2005 O R D E R: It is the case of the petitioner that she is the small farmer owning the wet lands of an extent of Ac.0.38 gts in Sy.No.24/1, Ac.2.04 gts in Sy.No.260 and Ac.0.37 cents in Sy.No.261 situated at Jakoru village, Varni Mandal, Nizamabad District. She has dug a bore well in Sy.Nos.260 and 261 for extraction of water for the purpose of irrigating her lands and also got the electrical connection. While making use of the said bore well, the 2nd respondent Mandal Revenue Officer under cover of Panchanama dated 20.12.2004 seized the said bore well on the grounds that the petitioner has dug the bore well without obtaining any permission from the competent authorities which is situated at 43 ft away from the bore well of the 5th respondent and hence the said action is illegal and contrary to A.P.Water, Land and Trees Act 2002 (Act 10 of 2002) and therefore, the illegal connection was disconnected by taking away the fuse and the bore well was closed directing the petitioner not to draw the water from the said bore well. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said action of the 2nd respondent is illegal and against the provisions of Sec.15 of the A.P.Water, Land and Trees Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). A counter is filed by the 2nd respondent Mandal Revenue Officer, Varni stating that notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.12.2004 to close down the newly dug bore well situated in Sy.Nos.260 and 261 of Jakora village and the petitioner has refused to receive the notice when tried to serve the same through the Village Servant and therefore, the bore well was seized under cover of Panchanama and also got electricity connection disconnected. It is stated that the petitioner has not obtained any permission from the competent authority to dug the bore well and if there is any necessity to dug the bore well for irrigation purpose, it is always open for the petitioner to make an application and obtain permission from the competent authority and in the absence of any such permission, it cannot be said that the action taken by the respondents is illegal. No doubt under Sec.10(2) of the Act, any person who intends to sink a bore well for purpose of irrigation within the specified distance shall apply for permission to the competent authority. It is stated that in the instant case, no such application is filed. However, whoever dugs the bore well in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the authority or any authorized officer may enter upon the land and remove the obstruction, if any, close the pumping of the water, disconnect the power supply, seize any material or equipment used in connection with such extraction of water and take any such action, as may be required to stop such extraction and may by order require the owner or the person in possession of the bore well to close or seal off the well at his expense and in such manner as the authority may specify in such order. In the instant case, no order has been passed by the competent authority, but according to the averments made in the counter only notice was issued, but the said notice which was tried to be served through village servant was avoided. If the notice was avoided to be received, the competent authority would have passed an order requiring the petitioner to stop such extraction of the water. Under Sec.15(2) of the Act where such owner or person in possession fails to comply with the order under Sec.15(1), then it is open for the authority to enter upon the land and close or seal off the bore well at the cost of the person who illegally dug the bore well. In the instant case, except the so called notice said to have been issued which was admittedly not served and without passing an order, the bore well was seized and therefore, I am of the opinion, the action taken by the 2nd respondent in closing the bore well is illegal. The Mandal Revenue Officer himself fairly stated in the counter that if really the petitioner requires to sink a bore well, it is always open for him to make an application. If that be so, it is just and proper for the petitioner to file an application before the 2nd respondent to ratify her action of digging bore well by her or to dig another bore well, as the case may be, for the purpose of irrigation, and on such application, the 2nd respondent may hear the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 03.03.2011 Dsr