IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 22377 of 2014 BETWEEN T.Konda Reddy AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner alleges that his bore well in S.No.19 in an extent of Ac.3-01 cents situated at Itikalapalli Village, Anantapuram Rural and Mandal, Anantapuram District, was not being allowed to be used by respondent No.3- Tahsidlar and hence seeks direction against respondent No.3 to permit the petitioner to draw water from the said bore well.
3. Learned Government Pleader, who has secured instructions, submits that on the complaint by one P.Paramesh, respondent No.4 herein, respondent No.3 conducted enquiry into the matter and found that petitioner as well as respondent No.4 has dug bore wells without seeking permission under the WALTA Act. Hence, both of them were given notices calling upon them to submit explanation and both the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 had submitted their explanations. The instructions further state that respondent No.3 referred the matter for clarification as to feasibility between existing and new bore wells to the Assistant Director, Ground Water, who has also alleged to have sent his clarifications.
4. The instructions, however, do not say as to whether respondent No.3 has passed any orders after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and respondent No.4.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that no orders, as such, are passed. However petitioner is not allowed to use the bore well resulting in serious damage to the crops standing on the field.
6. In the circumstances, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the Tahsildar respondent No.3 has not passed any orders already under Section 15 of the WALTA, he may do so expeditiously as he has already received the explanation from the petitioner and respondent No.4 as well as clarifications from the Ground Water Department. The petitioner be permitted to use the water from the bore well depending upon the result and subject to the orders that would be passed by respondent No.3. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 13, 2014 LMV