THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25694 of 2010 Date: 30.11.2010 Between: Bugga Parandhama ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its District Collector, Nalgonda District and another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt. N. Anula Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : A.G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25694 of 2010 Order: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in seizing the bore well without giving notice as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the owner of the bore well sunk in Survey Nos.888/W and 888/EE of Puligilla Village, Valigonda Manal, Nalgonda District. By a purported Form 7 notice dated 13.7.2010, respondent No.2 has seized the bore well. Assailing this action, the present writ petition is filed. Despite adjournment of the case on two occasions, no counter affidavit is filed. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 has seized the petitioner’s bore well without issuing a notice as envisaged under Section 15(2) of A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, stated that respondent No.2 has issued offence report traceable to Form No.4 though the said notice dated 13.7.2010 is termed as “Form- 7”. Be that as it may, it is not the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that prior notice as contemplated under Section 15(2) has been issued. In my opinion, the stage for issuing Form 4 notice would arise only after a notice under Section 15 has been given to the petitioner and on respondent No.2 being satisfied after considering the explanation, if any, submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner has violated provisions of the Act and thereby committed the alleged offence. This Court in P. Narayana Reddy vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Morthad Mandal and others ([1]), has held that a prior notice as envisaged by Section 15(2) of the Act is mandatory. In the absence of any stand taken on behalf of respondent No.2 that the mandatory procedure under Section 15(2) has been followed, the seizure of petitioner’s bore well in violation of this mandatory procedure is illegal. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned notice is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to forthwith restore the bore well to the petitioner. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No.2 from initiating a fresh action by following due procedure of law, as envisaged under Section 15 of the Act. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 30th November, 2010 pnb [1] 2004(6) ALD 653