P NARAYANA REDDY Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is resident of Palem Village. He is the pattadar of the land in Survey No.297 of Palem Village. He dug a bore well in 1990, obtained service connection from Electricity Department and using the bore well for irrigating his land. It appears the fourth respondent gave a complaint to the first respondent alleging that the petitioner dug a bore well at a distance of 3.5 meters from the bore well of the fourth respondent without obtaining any permission. Therefore the first respondent by impugned notice/order dated 30.6.2003 directed the petitioner not to draw the water until further orders. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition raising two grounds: that unless and until the area from which the water can be pumped is notified under Section 9 of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (the Act, for brevity), there cannot be imposition of distance rule for digging bore wells; and that impugned order was not preceded by any notice which will cause prejudice to the petitioner.

(2.) The writ petition is opposed by the fourth respondent. In the counter-affidavit filed accompanying WVMP No.3694 of 2003, two grounds urged in opposition. First, the petitioner has effective alternative remedy under Section 27 of A.P. Water, Land and Trees Rules, 2002 (the Rules, for brevity), and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Secondly, the impugned order itself is notice requiring the petitioner to submit explanation to the notice and as the petitioner failed to avail such opportunity, he cannot be permitted to urge other grounds in this writ petition.

(3.) Though the Interlocutory applications being WVMP No.3694 of 2003 and WPMP No. 10703 of 2004 are listed, the writ petition itself has been finally heard and being disposed of at the Interlocutory stage with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.