THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10255 of 2002 July 05, 2010 Between: B. Ramana Reddy, S/o.Chenna Reddy … Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor And another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10255 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is resident of T.S.Agraharam Village of Palamaner Mandal in Chittoor District. He owns land admeasuring Acs.1.80 in S.No.278. The land in S.No.279 is Government land classified as Tank poramboke. It is his case that so as to irrigate his lands in S.Nos.143, 72, 242, 90, 351, 128 and 254, he dug a bore well at three points, in vain. Therefore, after getting expert advice from Geologist, he dug bore well in S.No.279. This time he became successful. He obtained electricity connection being S.C.No.136 and fixed submersible motor in 1991. He has been cultivating the land. On 03.3.1993, first respondent issued endorsement directing petitioner to remove bore well informing that further action will be taken up if it is not complied with. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. The counter affidavit is filed by the Tahsildar, Palamaner. It is stated that the District Collector gave directions to close the bore well. The petitioner then presented a revision before the Government, who vide their orders in memo No.27018/LR-5-93-1, dated 08.4.1993, granted stay. Subsequently the revision petition was dismissed by order of the Government vide memo No.87756/LR-3/98-6, dated 06.6.2002. Thereafter the petitioner filed instant writ petition. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Villagers submitted petition to District Collector on 20.4.2002, which was forwarded to the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO). A detailed report dated 03.5.2002 was sent and considering the same direction was issued to seize the bore well in S.No.279. Accordingly the bore well was seized on 09.5.2002 duly disconnecting the power supply. A reference is also made to BSO 6 and BSO 7. The petitioner has not chosen to file reply affidavit denying the counter averments. The counsel for petitioner raised two contentions. The bore well dug by the petitioner in Tank poramboke in S.No.279 cannot be seized without issuing prior notice to petitioner and that due process of law requires an enquiry to be conducted. These contentions are refuted by the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area). Admittedly petitioner dug the bore well in Tank poramboke. BSO 6(3) is to the effect that there is no restriction on the sinking of wells in proximity of Government irrigation works provided only that they are sunk in land which belongs to the person sinking the well. BSO 7(2) prohibits use of water from Government source without obtaining permission. In this case, petitioner has violated both the standing orders. When objection was raised by the Villagers, the District Collector did not straight away order seizure of the bore well. Petitioner was issued impugned endorsement dated 03.3.1993 to remove the well from S.No.279. The said endorsement is in the nature of notice. When admittedly the petitioner sunk the bore well in S.No.279, which is Tank poramboke, there is no necessity for further enquiry. The impugned endorsement itself is in the nature of notice. The petitioner filed a revision before the Government and the same was dismissed on 06.6.2002. It appears that the petitioner was able to take the water from the bore well to his lands for a period of nine years after obtaining the order of stay from the Government. After the revision was dismissed, there is no further enquiry need to be conducted. Therefore the District Collector ordered seizure of bore well. In the totality of circumstances, this Court is convinced that fairness is meted out to petitioner and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) July 05, 2010 YS