IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4555 of 2001 Between: R. Narayana Reddy S/o Reddepa Reddy R/o Ramulavaripalle Village, Hamlet of Gundrevaripalle, K.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer K.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the bore well belonging to the petitioner and situated in Sy.No.1076 of Ramilavaripalle Village, K.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent not to interfere with the petitioner's drawing water from the said bore well Counsel for the Petitioner:M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4555 of 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled challenging the action of the Respondents in seizing the borewell belonging to the Petitioner situated in Survey No.1076 of Ramulavaripalle Village, K.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor District. It is stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the Writ Petition that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, K.V.Palle Mandal, the second respondent in the Writ Petition, seized the borewell of the Petitioner and directed him not to use the same. An Order to the said eﬀect was passed on 12.03.2001 in proceedings ROC No.A/127/01. The Petitioner challenges the said action on the ground that the procedure prescribed under the A.P.Ground Water (Regulation for Drinking Water Purpose) Act, 1996 was not followed while initiating the impugned action against him. The Respondents ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit stating to the eﬀect that owing to the severe drought conditions prevailing at that point of time, the Government had directed that no person should sink any borewell in the vicinity of a public drinking water source. Owing to the severe scarcity of water the Respondents were constrained to take over the Petitioner’s borewell. Be that as it may, it is relevant to note that the A.P.Ground Water (Regulation for Drinking Water Purpose) Act, 1996 was repealed by the A.P.Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and accordingly, any proceeding initiated under the provisions of the repealed Act would not survive unless saved under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. No such situation is made out on the facts of the present case. Further, as stated in the counter-aﬃdavit, the measure taken by the Respondents, insofar as the Petitioner’s borewell is concerned, was occasioned by severe drought and water scarcity prevailing at that point of time. In the event of any action being necessitated in future insofar as the Petitioner’s borewell is concerned, the Respondents are always at liberty to take recourse to the A.P.Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 duly following the procedure prescribed therein. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 10.09.2008 va