THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19162 of 2002 DATED 08.10.2009 BETWEEN: Lakkireddy Sambasiva Reddy … Petitioner AND Mandal Revenue Officer, Saidapur Mandal, Karimnagar District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19162 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is statedly an agriculturist owning an extent of Acs.5.00 in survey Nos.241 and 242 situated in Bommakal Sivar of Ammanagurthi Village, Saidapur Mandal of Karimnagar District. As there was rain failure in 2002, he commenced digging open well on 24.09.2002. When the digging was completed, it is alleged at the behest of third respondent, first respondent came to petitioner’s land and directed not to proceed with the digging of borewell. Petitioner was also threatened with criminal action and therefore, he filed instant writ petition. This Court while admtiting writ petition on 09.10.2002, passed interim orders directing respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with digging of the well by petitioner in his patta land if it is not going to effect the level of the water in any open borewell meant for drinking water supply. Thereafter, respondents moved W.V.M.P.No.3314 of 2002 for vacating the interim order. Then by order, dated 28.01.2003, this Court dismissed the said application making interim orders absolute. In the counter affidavit filed by first respondent, it is stated that the petitioner commenced digging of borewell without obtaining permission under Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (the Act, for brevity) and Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Rules, 2002 and therefore, petitioner was prevented from digging borewell. There is no averment to the effect that the first respondent passed orders prohibiting digging of borewell. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. There is no dispute that the petitioner is owner of the land. There is also no dispute that as of now or in 2002, the water authority issued any notification declaring Saidapur Mandal as over expoited area. Unless such notification is issued by authority, there cannot be any prohibition for digging borewell. Even if any borewell is dug without permission, law contemplates the seizure of borewell after issuing notice and conducting enquiries. Therefore, the impugned action is clearly unsustainable. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. However, it shall be open to first respondent to conduct enquiry into the matter with referece to any notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Act. If there is no such notification, needless to mention that the petitioner’s right to extract water from his land and utilise for agriculture cannot be interfered with. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.10.2009 pln