✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 30 Nov 2022

Kandi Nagaraju v. The Collector & District Magistrate, Vizianagaram District

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. In view of the above instructions, it appears that the respondent authorities have not proceeded with the enquiry in pursuance of the notice dated 20.12:2012.
  • Para 88. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SECTIONOFFICER To,

Judgment

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus directing the 3^*^ Respondent or any other appropriate authority to proceed further with the enquiry pursuant to the notice dated 20.12.2012 issued by the Tahsildar to the 4*’’ Respondent and take appropriate action for removal of the well sunk by the 4‘*’ Respondent under the provisions of A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and the Rules and Notifications issued there under in the interest of justice. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPIVIP. NO: 23287 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Tahsildar, Garividi, Vizianagaram District to take immediate steps for conducting and concluding enquiry pursuant to the Notice dated 20-12-2012 issued by the 4*’’ respondent in accordance with law in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to fixing an early date in W.P.No. 18010 of 2015, in the interest of justice. Counsel'for the Petitioner : SRI. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 : The Court made the following : ORDER HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No. 18010 of 2015 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3"* Respondent or any other appropriate authority to proceed further with the enquiry pursuant to the notice dated 20.12.2012 issued by the Tahsildar to the 4^^ Respondent and take appropriate action for removal of the well sunk by the 4^ Respondent under the provisions of A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and the Rules and Notifications issued there under in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

#2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an agriculturist and his family is solely depending on the agricultural income derived out of the agricultural lands of the petitioner. Since the petitioner is not having any source of irrigation, he has dug a weU more than 12 years ago and has been using the same , for; his agricultural operations. While so, the 4th respondent without obtaining any permission from the authorities under the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, illegally dug a well which is near to the 2 petitioner’s well and drawing water from the well with the help of an electrical motor. ' ■ (a) It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the well dug by the 4*^ respondent within a short distance of about 15 feet from the petitioner’s existing well, the petitioner could not able to draw water as the water in the well is diminishing rapidly as the 4* respondent is drawing water through electrical motor from his new well. (b) As such, the petitioner approached the revenue authorities and submitted representation requesting them to enquire into the matter and to. take appropriate action against the 4*^ respondent. Thereupon, on the direction of the Tahsildar, the Mandal Surveyor visited both the wells and submitted a report dated 03.12.2012 to the Tahsildar, basing on which, the Tahsildar issued notice dated 20.12.2012 to the 4th respondent directing him to submit the permission obtained by him for digging the well. The Tahsildar except issuing the notice, has not taken any further action against the 4th respondent and has not finalized the issue. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. ~7 3 T

#3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Revenue has produced the instructions ■ ■■ /•••c? of the Tahsildar-3^d respondent in Rc.No.267/2022, HDT, dated

30..11.2012, wherein it is stated that basing on the report of the Mandal Surveyor, Garividi oh 03.12.2012, the then Tahsildar, Garividi has issued notice td the 4*^ respondent dated

20.12.2012 directing him to submit the permission obtained for digging the well under the provisions of A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, but however admitted that so far no further e • action has been initiated against the individual. '■

#4. In view of the above instructions, it appears that the respondent authorities have not proceeded with the enquiry in pursuance of the notice dated 20.12:2012.

#5. Now, it is relevant to refer Section 10(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 for better appreciation of the case, which reads as under:

#10. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force and haying regard to the interests of the general public to have the, supply of requisite quantity of water for drinking purposes from the public drinking water source, no person subject to sub- section (2) shall sink any well in the vicinity of a public drinking water source within a distance of two hundred and fifty meters in areas other than the areas covered under section 9 and sub-section (1) of section 11 thereof 4 Provided that sinking of any well for public drinking purpose and hand pump for public or private drinking water purpose shall be exempted under this section. (2) Any person, who intends to sink a well for purpose of irrigation or drinking or for any other purpose within a distance as specified under sub-section (1) of a public drinking water source, shall apply for permission to the Authority in such manner and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that in respect of sinking a well for the purpose of irrigation or drinking or for any other purpose and if such source is intended to be used with a power driven pump the person shall also obtain prior permission of the A.P.TRANSCO constituted under section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act,,, 1998 in such manner as may be prescribed.

#6. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that when any person intends to dug a well for the purpose of irrigation or drinking, shall obtain prior permission from the concerned Department and the distance'shall be two hundred and fifty meters. Here, in the instant case, the 4* respondent having not obtained any permission for digging of the well from the concerned authorities, dug a well within a short distance of 15 feet from the petitioner’s existing well and the respondent authorities except issuing notice to the 4* respondent on

20.12.2022, have not taken any further action in this regard.

#7. In view of the same, instead of going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent-Tahsildar to complete i;." ■ -5 the enquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ..

#8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SECTIONOFFICER To,

#1. The. Collector & District Magistrate, Vizianagaram District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 3. The Tahsildar, Garividi, Vizianagaram District. 4. The Principal Secretary (Revenue), State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

#5. One CC to Sri. G Rama Gopal Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies PV Sdkr HIGH COURT DATED:30/11/2022 • z z ORDER WP.No.18010 of 2015 * 17 AUS a Current Section DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act — s. 13.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 30 Nov 2022. The bench was V SUJATHA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 18010 of 2015). ← Search more judgments