IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.23033 of 2014 & SUO MOTU CONTEMPT CASE No.1452 of 2014 WP.No.23033 of 2014: BETWEEN T. Kondal Rao.
AND ... PETITIONER The Tahsildar, Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar District and two others.
...RESPONDENTS SUO MOTU CC.No.1452 of 2014:
In RE… The Tahsildar, Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.
…RESPONDENT The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government pleader.
2. The contempt case is connected with the writ petition, as it arises out of non compliance of directions issued by this Court dated 12.08.2014 in WP.No.23033 of 2014. Hence, both the matters are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Petitioner claims to be the owner of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2-12 guntas in Survey No.81/F/2 (Metta) and Ac.1-05 ½ guntas in survey No.82/D (Metta) in Jaggaiahpalli village of Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar District. Petitioner states that he also owns other agricultural lands apart from these lands and on account of insufficient rains; he desired to dig an open well and as such, started digging the well in July, 2014. While the digging of the said well was almost completed, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are stated to have physically visited the land of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to stop the digging of the well and threatened that the petitioner would be booked in criminal case.
4. Present writ petition, therefore, is filed by the petitioner complaining of the interference by respondent Nos.1 ands 2 with reference to digging of the said open well as contrary to law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised one of the main contentions in support of the writ petition that the open well, which is being dug by the petitioner, is not in the vicinity of any public drinking water source and as such, the requirement of obtaining permission under Section 10 of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short ‘WALTA’) does not arise. Learned counsel also specifically submitted that since the open well is not subjected to WALTA, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to interfere with the digging of the said well.
6. When the writ petition came up on 12.8.2014, this court passed the following order:
“Petitioner states that while he was digging an open bore well at a distance of 250 Mts from a public water drinking source, Tahsildar/first respondent, allegedly, interfered with the said well and according to the petitioner, no such permission is required under Section 10 of the Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002.
Notice before admission. List on 25.08.2014 in ‘ML’ Meanwhile, the first respondent is directed to inspect the land of the petitioner with reference to the well he is digging and file a report recording the factual aspects including the distance thereof from the public water drinking source by the next date of hearing.”
7. Since the aforesaid order was not complied with, this Court on 25.08.2014 directed that the respondent No.1 shall be personally present in the Court on the next date. However, on 01.09.2014, it was noticed that neither the order dated 25.08.2014 is complied with nor any report is filed nor respondent No.1 is present in the Court, hence, suo motu contempt was initiated. On 10.10.2014, respondent No.1 appeared in response to the order dated 01.09.2014 and filed a counter affidavit as well a report. Keeping that in view the presence of respondent No.1-contemnor was dispensed with and that is how the contempt case is coming up along with this writ petition.
8. The report filed by respondent No.1 dated 30.08.2014 is, in fact, a report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector to respondent No.1 and is technically a report of respondent No.1, which was called for. The said report, however, states that on verification of the land and on measuring the distance from well to well, it was found that the open well dug by the petitioner is 65 meters away from another well. However, there is no reference in the report to existence of any public drinking water source. The counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1 also does not state that there is any public drinking water source within the prohibited distance from the well sought to be dug by the petitioner. The counter affidavit, on the contrary, states that as per the inspection at the spot, the petitioner was found to be digging the well without obtaining any permission and hence, he was asked to stop the digging of well. It is also stated that the agricultural well of another complainant is 65 meters away from the open well dug by the petitioner. It is stated that the there would be no objection if permission is obtained by the petitioner for digging the well under the WALTA.
9. Evidently, the report as well as the counter affidavit does not assert about existence of any pubic drinking water source within the prohibited distance as contemplated under Section 10 of the WALTA. Apart from that, the satisfaction of the authority on the said aspect and physical interference with the well of the petitioner by respondent Nos.1 and 2 are even otherwise not in accordance with law and is contrary to WALTA. If respondent No.1 had any other objection with regard to WALTA, at best, he could have given a notice to the petitioner so that the petitioner could have sent a proper reply to the satisfaction of respondent No.1 and based on the explanation, respondent No.1 would take any further action, if warranted.
Hence, in any case, physical interference by respondent is not in accordance with law and cannot be approved.
10. In the circumstances, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to physically interfere with the open well dug by the petitioner, as referred to above, a s prima facie it appears to be not within the prohibited distance as contemplated under Section 10(1) of WALTA. However, this will not preclude respondent No.1 from issuing appropriate notice to the petitioner, if he is satisfied that there is any violation on the part of the petitioner with regard to provisions of WALTA and if such a notice is given the petitioner, he shall also be give appropriate time to respond to the said notice and thereafter appropriate order may be passed by respondent No.1.
11. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, as above, it is not necessary to pursue the contempt case and no further orders need be passed in the contempt case. The contempt case is closed.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of and the contempt case is closed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 20, 2014 LMV