IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8015 of 2000 Between: D. Prabhakara Naidu. … Petitioner And Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: --- Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 19-4-2000 issued by respondent No.3, wherein he seized the bore well of the petitioner located in his patta land in Survey Nos.279 and 283/2 of Diguva Tadakara village, Tavanamapalle Mandal, Chittoor District. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. The petitioner’s bore well, dug in his patta land, was seized by respondent No.3 by impugned proceedings dated 19-4-2000. The petitioner averred that under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Ground Water (Regulation for Drinking Water Purposes) Act, 1996 (for short “the 1996 Act”) the appropriate authority is bound to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing before any order is passed to close the existing bore well, but no such notice was given to him, and that, therefore, the action of seizure of bore well is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 6(1) of the 1996 Act. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that after filing of the Writ Petition, the 1996 Act was repealed by the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short “the 2002 Act”). He, however, fairly conceded that a corresponding provision to Section 6 of the 1996 Act is contained in Section 15 of the 2002 Act, which was interpreted by this Court to the effect that the requirement of notice shall be read into that provision. Inasmuch as no notice was given to the petitioner before taking the impugned action, seizure of the petitioner’s bore well cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. However, this order does not preclude the respondents from initiating action afresh under the provisions of the 2002 Act, if they so choose. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:10-07-2008 MNR