VIKAS PANJABRAO MATHANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 04-06-2018, passed by respondent no.2-Sub-Divisional Officer, Achalpur, whereby the said respondent has allowed the application filed by respondent no.3 and directed that the bore well dug by the petitioner in his field in village Belmandali in field Survey No.18/3/E be closed and further that action be taken against him under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2009 [for short, 'Act of 2009'].

(3.) The respondent no.3 submitted an application/complaint before respondent no.2-Sub-Divisional Officer, stating that the petitioner had dug the aforesaid bore well in the field adjoining the field of respondent no.3, due to which a well in the field of respondent no.3 had been rendered dry, causing loss to the Orange fruit trees standing in his field. On the basis of the said complaint submitted by respondent no.3, respondent no.2-Sub-Divisional Officer asked the Talathi to carry out spot inspection and submit report. Accordingly, the Talathi submitted report to respondent no.2-Sub-Divisional Officer, stating that the bore well dug by the petitioner was at a distance of about 240 ft from the well of respondent no.3 in his field and that village Belmandali was classified as "critical" in terms of availability of water. It was further stated in the report that the petitioner had not taken any permission before digging the bore well in his field. The respondent no.2-Sub-Divisional Officer passed the impugned order on 04-06-2018. In the said order, respondent no.2-Sub-Divisional Officer referred to Notification dated 11-02-2013, issued by the District Magistrate, Amravati and also to a letter dated 07-04-2018, received from the Senior Geologist of the Groundwater Resources Department, wherein it had been stated that the Notification dated 11-02-2013, had been issued under Section 8(2) of the Act of 2009. The respondent no.2-SubDivisional Officer, in the impugned order, came to a specific conclusion that as per the aforesaid Notification dated 11-02-2013, issued by the District Magistrate, there was ban on digging wells in both the "critical" and "over-exploited" villages in mini watershed areas. After taking into consideration the fact, that the bore well dug by the petitioner was at a distance of only 240 ft from the well of respondent no.3, respondent no.2- Sub-Divisional Officer, allowed the application of respondent no.3 and directed that the bore well dug by the petitioner shall be closed as it was found to be illegal and further that action under Section 52 of the Act of 2009, be undertaken against the petitioner.