K M HIRIYANNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition is seeking writ of certiorari for quashing Annexure-A the order passed by the deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, affirming the order passed by the third respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for sinking borewell in his land.

(2.) PETITIONER is the owner in possession of the properties bearing Sy. No. 16/1p1 measuring 33 guntas and Sy. No. 16/2a measuring 25 guntas situated at Nadamanchale Village, Sagar Taluk. There is an open well in sy. No. 16/1p1 and it is the only water source for cultivation of his land. He has grown areca nut gardens which requires more water during summer season. The open well has no sufficient water. Therefore, he decided to dig borewell for the purpose of irrigating his areca nut garden. His case is that the Government tank is situated at Sy. No. 134 and a water source is situated in Sy. No. 18,2,500 ft. away from the petitioner's land. The petitioner's lands are situated on the upper portion of the tank and water source. If the borewell is dug in the petitioner's land, it will not affect the water tank in any way and the petitioner is not using or drawing the water from the aforesaid source. The petitioner contends that the tank situated in Sy. No. 13 and the alleged water source is situated in Sy. No. 18 are not declared as public source of drinking water area by issuing any notification as required under Section 7 of the Karnataka Ground water (Regulation for Protection of Sources of Drinking Water) Act, 1999, for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'act'. Therefore, the authorities cannot prohibit the petitioner from digging a borewell in his land for agricultural purposes. There are no Government drinking water wells or ponds situated surrounding the land of the petitioner. When the petitioner started digging the borewell, the third respondent issued a notice calling upon him not to dig the borewell without prior permission and it was followed by an order prohibiting him from digging the borewell. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W. P. No. 27500/05. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under section 14 of the said Act. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The second respondent after hearing the parties partly allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the third respondent and directed the petitioner to approach the second respondent for permission to dig the borewell. The said order was challenged again by way of writ petition in W. P. No. 5637/06 before this Court. This Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to place all the materials before the competent authority to show that digging of the borewell will not affect the source of drinking water to the public at large and further directed the competent authority to consider the application filed by the petitioner within a period of two months. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application seeking permission to dig borewell in his land. An inspection was conducted, mahazar was drawn and thereafter, permission sought for was rejected as per Annexure-B. The petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the said order, which came to be dismissed as per annexure-A. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition before this Court.

(3.) THE villagers who had participated in the proceedings therein were not made parties to this writ petition. Therefore, they have filed impleading application. The same was allowed.