IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14621 of 2005 Between: 1 A.V. Krishna Reddy, S/o. Dharma Reddy, R/o. Pandipadu Village, A.S. Peta Mandal, Nellore District. 2 A. Dharma Reddy, S/o. Laxma Reddy R/o. Pandipadu Village, A.S. Peta Mandal, Nellore District. 3 A. Damoder Reddy, S/o. Dasaratharam Reddy, R/o. Pandipadu Village, A.S. Peta Mandal, Nellore District. 4 A. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Dasaratharam Reddy, R/o. Pandipadu Village, A.S. Peta Mandal, Nellore District. 5 A. Venkateshwar Reddy, S/o. Dharma Reddy, R/o. Pandipadu Village, A.S. Peta Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 District Collector, Collectors Office, Nellore. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, A.S. Pet Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.C.VANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 07-05-2005 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Smt C.Vani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. The petitioners claim that they own and possess small extents of lands in Survey Nos.69, 71, 73.1 and 73.2 of Pandipadu Village, A.S.Peta Mandal, Nellore District, and since there was no water source for the said lands, they dug filter points/borewells in Survey No.170 of Kakarlapadu vagu poramboke and have been drawing water to cultivate the said lands since the year 1989. The petitioners alleged that on 29- 06-2005, respondent No.2 visited the said survey number and instructed them to close down the borewells on the ground that he was directed by respondent No.1 through the impugned proceedings to initiate necessary action for closure of all the borewells existing in Survey No.170 of Kakarlapadu Village if they were dug without the permission of the competent authorities. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia averred that Survey No.170 is a Government land and the impugned letter, which is an internal correspondence, was addressed by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 to take necessary action as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) and there is no specific direction to close the borewells of the petitioners. It is also averred that the writ petition is filed only on an apprehension that the borewells would be closed and that there is no cause of action for filing the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the writ petition is wholly premature. It cannot be disputed that no person is entitled to dig a borewell contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned proceedings by which respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate action wherever the borewells are dug contrary to the provisions of the Act. If the petitioners have already obtained necessary permissions for digging their borewells on the land, which is admittedly a Government poramboke, the respondents are not entitled to close their borewells. Respondent No.2 had taken the specific stand that so far no decision is taken for closing of the borewells dug by the petitioners and that he will examine the issue in the light of the provisions of the Act. In this view of the matter, while holding that the writ petition is premature, respondent No.2 is directed to issue notice to the petitioners and give them an opportunity to put forth their contentions and thereafter pass appropriate orders on the issue as to whether the borewells dug by the petitioners are liable to be closed or not. Till then, status quo as on today shall be maintained. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.24534 of 2005 and WVMP No.2083 of 2006 are dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 19th June, 2008 vrn