THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.441 OF 2003 DATED: 12.11.2010 Between : Yarlagadda Krishna Kumari … Petitioner And 1. The Government of A.P., Irrigation Department, Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad., And 4 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.441 OF 2003 ORDER : The petitioner herein claims title and possession in respect of Ac.6.98 guntas of land situated in Chennakeshavapuram, Kariwarala, Nadigudem Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is stated that on 11.1.1989 a bore well was sunk in his land and she had been using water therefrom for irrigating the lands. While so, on 3.1.2002 the staff from the office of the respondents 3 and 4 visited the lands belonging to the petitioner and attempted to seize the bore well installed in her land on the basis of the order dated 27.12.2002 said to have been passed by the 2nd respondent under the provisions of A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002. Contending that the said order dated 27.12.2002 was never communicated to her and that she was not aware of any proceedings initiated under the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the impugned action of the respondents 1 to 4 in interfering with the agricultural activities of the petitioner and attempting to seize the bore well installed in her land is arbitrary and illegal. This Court while issuing rule nisi, by order dated 8.1.2003 directed not to seize the bore well in question. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer, it is merely stated that the petitioner’s bore well was sought to be seized basing on the 2nd respondent’s order dated 27.12.2002 directing to close the bore well which was unauthorizedly sunk without permission as required under the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder. However, the specific plea of the petitioner that no notice was served upon her at any point of time and no enquiry as contemplated under the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 was conducted either by the 2nd respondent or any other authority has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit. Despite notice, the 5th respondent did not choose to appear. Having regard to the uncontroverted plea that the impugned was passed without notice to the petitioner and without making any enquiry as provided under the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, the impugned action of the respondents 1 to 4 in seeking to seize the bore well in question is liable to be declared as arbitrary and illegal on that ground alone. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the agricultural operations of the petitioner in the land in question including the bore well sunk in the said land in any manner whatsoever without following due process of law. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 12.11.2010 gbs