WP/39725/2012 of Medaboyina Pedda Mastanaiah Vs The District Collector, on 28 December 2012

ORDER:

The action of the respondents, in seizing the bore well ofthe petitioner, in Sy.No.906 situated at Pedduru Village,Chilekampally, Chakrayapet Mandal, Kadapa District, isquestioned in this Writ Petition as being illegal and arbitrary. It isthe petitioner’s case that he dug a bore well adjacent to his wellwhich had dried; and, as the bore well dug was in substitution ofthe earlier well (dried up), no application need be made to therespondents.

Rule 13(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and TreesRules, 2004 (the Rules) requires any person or institution,desiring to dig a new well of any kind in their premises, to obtainpermission by submitting, to the authority having jurisdiction overthe area, an application in Forms 2 and 5. Section 2(22) of theA.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act')defines ‘Well’ to mean a well sunk for the search and extractionof ground water and includes a dug well, bore well, dug-cum-borewell etc.

Sri V.Narasimhulu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner,would submit that the petitioner would file an application in termsof Rule 13(1) of the Rules, seeking permission of the competentauthority to use the bore-well which has already been dug, withinten days from today; and, as a groundnut crop has already beenraised which would be ready for harvest within three weeks, thisCourt may permit the petitioner to use the bore-well till thestanding crop is harvested.

When the matter came up on 26.12.2012, LearnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue (Andhra and Rayalaseema Areas) sought time to obtain instructions. Today the LearnedGovernment Pleader, on instructions, would submit that when thepetitioner dug the bore well, no crop had been raised; as atpresent there exists a groundnut crop on the subject land whichappears to have been planted recently; and the petitioner, withoutsubmitting any application and without obtaining permission fromthe competent authority, had dug the bore well.

Ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is permittedto file an application, in terms of Rule 13(1) of the Rules, seekingpermission of the competent authority to use the bore-well whichhas already been dug. If such an application is filed within tendays from today, respondent No.3 shall examine the saidapplication, in accordance with law, bearing in mind thepetitioner’s claim that the bore well dug by him is not near adrinking source or in an over-exploited area; pass orders within aperiod of two months thereafter; and communicate his decision tothe petitioner.

As it is not in dispute that the petitioner has raisedgroundnut crop on the subject land, any delay in considering thepetitioner’s application may well result in irreparable damagebeing caused to the standing crop. I consider it appropriate,therefore, to direct respondent No.3 to forthwith permit thepetitioner to use the bore well till the standing crop is harvested,or till final orders are passed on the application to be submittedby the petitioner, whichever is later. It is made clear that, in casethe petitioner does not submit the application within the aforesaidperiod of ten days, it is open to the respondents to take action inaccordance with law.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. TheMiscellaneous Petition pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

Date:27.12.2012Note:Operative portion by wireat party’s costbousd RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J