The High Court · 2025

2. The Districl Collector, Peddapalli District (erstwhile Karimnagar District) 3. The Tahsildar, Kalva Srirampur Mandal, Peddapalli District. 4. K. SambasivaRao, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Agriculture, Srirampur Village and lt/andal, Peddapalli district. (R4 is impleaded as per C.O.dt. 17.03.2025 in lA No. 5/2025 (WP.MP.No. 26509t2017) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tfre niln Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in causing interference and threatenrng the petitioner from using the water from the well situated in his lands in Sy.Nos. 51/B and 52lA near Hussainmiya Vagu of Kalvasrirampur village and Mandal, Peddapalli District (erstwhile Karimnagar District) which is in existence since 30 years, without any reason, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the using of the water from the well situated in the above said land which is in existence for the past 30 years. l.A. NO: 2 OF 20',7(WPMP. N O:2218 OF 20171 Petition under section 151 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 Resporrdent No. 3 herein to permit the petitioner to use the water from the well situated n his lands in Sy.Nos. 5.,l/B and s2lA near Hussainmiya Vagu of Kalvasrirampur r, illage and t\ilandal, Peddapalli District (erstwhile Karimnagar District, pending rlisposal of the main Writ petition. l.A. NO: I OF 2017(WVM P. NO:731 OF 2017 Between: Secretariat, Hyderabad.

1. The State cf.Telangana, rep. by its principal Secretary, F(evenue Department 2. The Districl Collector,-Peddapalli District (erstwhile Karimnagar District) 3. The Tahsildar, Kalva Srirampur tVlandal, peddapalli Distrct. " ...PETtTtONERS/RESPONDENTS AND Goli Ramairrh, s/o Narsaiah, aged about 65 years, occ Agriculture, r/o H.No. B--39 Kalva _Srarampur village and tVlandal, peddapzrlti District (erstwhile Karimnagar District) ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Petition unrler Section 15'l cPC praying that in the cirr;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nlay be pleased to vac-ate the interinr orders dt. 20.01 .2017 passed in Wpl\4p.t\o. 2218 of 2O1l in WP.No. 1932 of 2)17 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.HARI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: Mis. S.SRAVANTHI, AGp FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.4: M/s. CHtNTHALAPHANI AVANI REDDY REVENUE The Court made t1e following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No. 1932 of 2OL7 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pieader for Revenue appearing for the officia,l respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. Chintalapani Avani Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.4 and perused the materia-l on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition is hled ques tioning the action of the respondent No.3 in causing interference and threatening the petitioner from using the water from the well situated in I his lands in Sy.Nos.SllB and 52 lA near Hussainmiya Vagu of Kalvasrirampur Village and Manda,l, Peddapalli District (erstwhile Karimnagar District) which is in existence since 30 years.

3. Learned counsel lor the petitioner further submits that the petitioner dug the well for cultivation about 30 a SI(,J W.P.N'c.7932 ol 2017 years bacli and using the well lor cultivation. Now the responden:s, without following due process of law as contempla,ed under the Telangala Water, Land arld Trees Act, 2OO2 (for Short "WALTA Act"), are trying to seize the well and r3quested to direct the respondents to follow the procedure for interfering with the possession of the petitioner.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter hled by the respondents submits that the petitioner made application in the year, 2013 for digging of open well for agricultural purpose :.n the land in Sy.Nos.S1 and 52 situated at Srirampur Village and Manda-l. After conducting tests by Ground Water Departmerrt, the application of the petitioner was not recommended for digging of well by the C'round Water Department vide Ref.No.349lT(l)l2Ol1l153, dated

07.06.201.) and the salne was informed to the petitioner by the respc,ndent No.3 vide Ref.No.B/357 l2,O13, dated

20.06.201.1 for rejecting the request of the petitioner in sr(,J w,P.No.7932 of 2017 Form-4 as provided under WALTA Act. In spite of the same, the petitioner without any permission has dug the open well and the same was disturbing the Government water source and also strengthened his well. In view of the same, the Tahsildar, Srirampur issued notice to the petitioner vide ReLNo.B/357 /2013, dated lZ.tI.2Ot4 intimating him that he is digging the well without any valid permission and directed him to submit his explanation within seven (7) days, otherwise, the authorities will seize the well. In view of the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that since the paddy crop raised by him was damaged due to scarcity of water, he dugr the well by spending Rs. 1O,OO,0OO/- (in words Rupees Ten Lakhs only). As the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing, the respondent authorities have seized the well according to the norms of WALTA Act. While seizing the weil, the respondent authorities have followed the procedure as contemplated under WALTA Act, hence, there \ 4 SK,J W.P.No.1932 oJ 2077 is no merit in the writ petition ald requested to rlismiss the writ petition.

5. After hearing both sides and perusing tLLr: material on record, this Court is of the considered vie *' that the petitioner har; not disclosed the earlier applicatior-r made by the petitione.' was rejected by the competent auLthority in the year, 2013 and also notice issued by the authorities lor seizing of tho well and at the time of argument s also, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not disputing the notice receivt,d by the petitioner for seizing of well.

6. In vierv of the same, there is no merit ill the u'ri t petition to pzrss direction to the ofhcial .respond':nti as not to interfere urith the digging of the well of the petitioner. The petitiont:r have right to make appropriate application for permission lrom the respondents as per V/ALTA Act. Thereafter, the authorities will pass appropriate orders' Without maling proper application and without having any 5 sr,J W.P.No.7932 of 2017 valid permission, the petitioner cannot take the water from the well dig by the petitioner

7. In view of the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application for obtaining permission from the competent authority for digging of well. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Miscelianeous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall also stand closed. SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY TANT REGISTRAR FCrroN oFFrcER riat, Hyderabad, State \ To

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Se //TRUE COPY// of Telangana The District Gollector, Peddap alli District (erstwhile Karimnagar District) The Tahsildar, Kalva SriramPu r Mandal, Peddapalli District One CC to SRI N.HARI PRASA D, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] O'ne CC to lMis. CHINTHALAPHANI AVANI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies Z 3 4 t o 7 PSK- GJP 3h- HIGH COI.'RT DATED:1 e10712025 1- I ORDER WP.No.19il2 of 2017 ,.:: i:.,: ,\ !:( \ 'Hg sEP 20tr ,1, /..-_-- I i) \j -, \,,1,- \:.\ c'i.. i- 1... DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT I3OSTS l:1 3