IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.12934 of 2014 BETWEEN Baru Mallikarjuna Rao.
AND ... PETITIONER State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. C. RAMACHANDRA RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The impugned endorsement of the Tahsildar dated 26.03.2014 is challenged in this writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the Tahsildar has violated the orders of this Court in WP.No.1989 of 2014 dated 17.02.2014.
2. Notice was already issued to the Tahsildar on the last date of hearing to show cause as to why the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him, as there is,
prima facie, defiance of the orders of this Court and at the same time, the learned Government Pleader was also required to get instructions.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submits and fairly accepts that as per the report of the Deputy Director, Ground Water Department dated 28.03.2104, the application of the petitioner for digging the bore-well can be considered under the safe category. The instructions received also confirm that there is no registered bore-well within the prohibitory distance with reference to the bore-well proposed to be dug by the petitioner. However, it is pointed out that the application of the petitioner does not mention the survey number where he proposes to dig the bore-well.
4. Mr. C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly accepts the said omission.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that on 05.03.2014, the land was inspected by the Tahsildar and based on that, remarks were sent.
6. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted liberty to apply afresh by specifying the survey number in which he proposes to dig the bore-well. On such application, being made, the Tahsildar shall examine the same with reference to the report of the Ground Water Department and the provisions of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 with reference to the registered bore-wells already existing within the prohibitory distance. Since the Tahsildar has already inspected the land, appropriate orders shall be passed by the Tahsildar within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 28, 2014 DSK