The High Court · 2025

Judgment

4. THE DIST COLLECTOR, NIZAMABAD, Nizamabad Districr, Nizamabad The Revenue Divisional OFficer, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. The Tahsildar,, Bhiknoor MAndal, Nizamabad District. Male Amruta, W/o Chandraiah Mallupally Village, Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Nlicre 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wnt of lvlandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not seizing bore well of the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the provisions of A_P. WALTA Act. l.A. NO: 1OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 2928 OF 20121 Petition under section 1si cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 3 for seizure of the 4th respondnet Bore well immediately pending disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.BRAHMATAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2356 ot20!2 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:- " to declare the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not seizing bore well of the 4th respondent as illegal, arbittary, unjust anil against thc prwisions of A.P. WALTA Act."

2. Facts rising to file this writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be owner of land in Sy.No.231/1 of Mallupally Village, Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizamabad District and petitioner being agriculturist was cuttivating the said land and in order to irrigate the land, Petitioner dug a bore well in the year 1996. While things stood thus, on 31J5.2008, respondent No.4 without obtaining prior sanction as envisaged under AP WALTA Act, 2002 dug a bore well very near to petitioner's land i.e., at 10 Sq.yards distance. Thereafter, petitioner on 31.05.2008 made a complaint and requested respondent No-3 to take action against respondent No.4. Thereafter, respondent No.3 on 04.06.2008, conducted panchanama at the instance of village elclers and seized the bore well of respondent No.4' Further case of the petitioner is that even after seizer, respondent No.4 was utilizing the bore well and thereby petitioner on 06.04.2011 made Praiavani Petition No.34187 before respondent No.1 and requested to erqufue into the matter. Subsequently, respondent No.1 asked Project director DWAMA to enquire into the matter and send a detailed report. The said report was sent stating that respondent No.4 had dug a bore well illegally in Sy.No.225 of Mallepally Village and the then MRI seized bore well on 04.06.2008 and ,, imposed penalty of Rs.2500/- and released the seiz,:d property and requested A.D.G.W department to conduct technical enquiry. Thereafter, the A.D.G.W department conducted detail enquiry and ,rn 11.09.2008 and sent detailed report to respondent No.1. Subsequently, oa 24.17.2011 respondent No.1 directed respondent No.3 to take action as per Section 15 of WALTA Act 2002. When no action was initiated, petitioner approached respondent No.3 in the month of November 2011 and thereafter, respondent No.3 issued memo dated 15.12.20"11', statinli that there is an Exparte ad interim Injunction passed by Prl.|unior Civil ]rdge, Kamareddy (herein after referred as Trial Court), in t,A.No.400 of 2008 in O.S.No.96 of 2008 dated 14.12.200-1., not to interfere with the possession of land to an extent of Ac.1.06 gts, in Sy.No,231/AA, situated at Mallupa1ly Shivar of Bikoor Mandal.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 't 4.12.2001is with respect to possession of the land to ar extent of Ac.1.06 gts, in Sy.No.231/AA, situated at Mallupally Shivar of B rkoor Mandal and not with respect of the bore well which was illegally drg by respondent No.4 and pray this Court to direct the respondent No.3 to seize the bore well of respondent No.4.

4. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent No.3 statirLg that husband of respondent No.4 made an application stating that'he dup a bore well in his own land and he was unaware o[ the rules for digginl; a bore well and requested to permit him to fix up motor'. Thereafter, an amount of l i I I I I I l U ::3:: Rs.2,500/- was imposed as penalty and the husband of respondent No.4 aiile c}nallan No.6022 dated 27.04.2N8 remitted the said amount and subsequently seized bore well was released. ln the counter, it is further stated that respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.95 of 2([8 and the Trial Court zride order dated 11.09.2008 in I.A.No.400 of 2008 in O.S.No.96 of 2008 granted interim order. Thereafter, petitioner's son on 13.05.2011 made a representation on the same issuc' before the District Collector, Nizamabad and oide letter bearing No.D3/7273/2O11 dated 27.07.20L1. The District Collector, Nizamabad directed the respondent to inform the status rePort in the matter urgently. In response to the same, a detailed rePort was submitted on 20.08.2011, stating that bore well has already been dug and the ground water department shall not take up any survey to know the potentiality of available water at present site and it was further reported that under Section 10(1) of At' WALTA Act 2002, it is not specially mentioned anywhere about the irrigation bore well dug in Private lands for agriculture purpose except the bore wells dug and effecting the public drinking water source. [t is further submitted that the Govemment in Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD-II! Dept. tti.de G.O.Ms.No.478 dated 04.12.2008, imposed ban on exploitation of ground water excePt for drinking water over exploited villages and the husband of respondent No.4 had dug the bore well on 30.05.2008 i.e., prior to issue of G.O.Ms.No.478 dated 04.12.2008. On the above report the DisEict Collector, Nizamabad, directed the respondent to take action as per Section 15 and 16 of AP \ \ WALTA- 2002 and since there is a civil case pending before the Trial Court 4 and in terms of interim order dated 11.0g.2X[gand 01, t1.2011 in I.A.No.400 of 2008 in o.s.No.95 of 2oo8, the respondent No.3 cr,uld not initiate any action in seizing the bore well of respondent No.4. 5. . Heard and perused the material available on recr,rcl- 6. Upon perusal, it is noticed that there is an interim order dated 11.09.2008 passed in I.A.No.400 of 2008 in O.S.No.96 of 2008 and upon query raised by this Court whether the said OS is pending or not? Leamed counsel for the petitioner fairry stated that he has no rnstructions in this regard. 7 It is pertinent to note that in O.S_No.96 of 200u the petitioner is defendant No.1 and respondent No.3 is defendant No.2, and inspite of the same petitioner is not aware whether the above said OS rs pendrng or not. Since there is an interim order in the said OS an<J this Court is not aware of the present stafus of O.S.No.96 of 200g,no mandamus can be issued at this juncfure and writ petition being devoid of merits, farls arrd rs liable to be dismissed.

8. For the foregoing reason, this writ pebition is ciism ssed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as available under law. Miscellanmus applications, if any pending, shall shrnd order as to costs. closed. No I i //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.C h. NAGABHUSHAMBA o\eu-w nedii?d;[ / To, l ST CTION OFFICER 1, One CCto SRI V.BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY, Ad VO te [OPUC]

2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, louTI

3. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP w HIGH COURT \ \ DATED:0510312025 -_ ., [^f€ t :, J o l, 7 a .l f' [t lul lffi t oEsPAl c$ ORDER WP.No.2356 ot 2012 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS : I I l l I 1 I t f t I I t ; i I II $i I I 4(orb G W#