APHC010650142022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 38741 OF 2022 Between: 1. S Viswanatha Reddy, S/o. Adi Reddy, Aged 40 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o. Nidhanawada Village, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapuram District. 2. A. Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Chinna Obi Reddy, Aged 43 years, R/o. Kunukuntia Village, Tadimarri Mandal, Anantapuram District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector-cum-District Level Authority, Anantapuramu, Anantapuram District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Divisional Level Authority, Anantapuramu,. Anantapuram District. 4. The Tahsildar-cum-Mandal Level Authority, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapuram District. 5. G Hanumantha Reddy, S/o. Obi Reddy, R/o. Nidhanawada Village, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapuram District. 6. G Subba Reddy, S/o, Ranga Reddy, R/o Nidhanawada Village, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapuram District. ...Respondents J APHC010650142022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 38741/2022 Between: 1.S VISWANATHA REDDY, S/0. ADI REDDY, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/0. NIDHANAWADA VILLAGE MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. SINGANAMALA 2.A. NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O. CHINNA OBI REDDY, AGED 43 YEARS, R/0. KUNUKUNTLA VILLAGE, TADIMARRI MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER{S) AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCUM DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORITY, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICERCUM DIVISIONAL LEVEL AUTHORITY, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDARCUM MANDAL LEVEL AUTHORITY, SINGANAMALA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 5.G HANUMANTHA REDDY, S/O. OBI REDDY, R/0. NIDHANAWADA VILLAGE, SINGANAMALA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 6.G SUBBA REDDY, S/O, RANGA REDDY, R/0 NIDHANAWADA SINGANAMALA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 2 HBKM,J \ W.P.No.38741 of2022 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.E ANJANA REDDY 3 HBKM,J W.P. No.38741 of2022 The Court made the following Order:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos,.5 and 6. th 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the proceedings issued by the 4 respondent dated 28.10.2022 in the matter of digging Bore well by the petitioners in Sy.No.32-3 in an extent of Ac.5.60 cents within a distance of nearly 30 Meters from the already existing Bore well in Sy.No.31-3 and seizure of the newly dug Bore well in Sy.No.32-3 in an extent of Ac.5.60 cents by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject Bore well cannot be seized by the 4'^ respondent herein under the above said proceedings dated 28.10.2022 exercising the power under the Andhra 3. Pradesh WALT Act, 2002. As this village i.e Nidhanawada Village Singanamala Mandal, Anantapur District is not included in the G.O.Ms.No.38 of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD-II) Department, dated 11.06.2021 treating it as exploited area identified by the Ground Water Department. Hence, the 4*^ respondent cannot invoke the provisions of A.P. WALT Act, 2002 to take the impugned action under Section 15 of the said Act. The earlier orders passed by this Court in the different writ petitions were also mentioned in the impugned order of the 4*^ respondent dated 28.10.2022. 4 HBKM,J ^ W.P.No.38741 of2022 The 4^*^ respondent specifically observed that, though this village is not 4. covered under over exploited area as per the information furnished by the Deputy Director of Ground Water Department, still under the purview of the A.P. WALT Act, 2002, the 4*^ respondent can go into the distance between the two Bore wells i.e., the disputed Bore well and the other Bore well, which is in existence already prior to the laying of the disputed Bore well and as per the th decision taken by the Mandal Committee under A.P. WALT Act, the 4 respondent can take his decision. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the counter of the 4'^ respondent submits that the impugned action of the 4*'^ respondent dated 28.10.2022 is within the purview and scope of the A.P. WALT Act, 2002 and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they can avail the alternative remedies available under law. 5. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 also sails with the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. The impugned order of the 4^^^ respondent dated 28.10.2022 clearly indicates at the foot note that, an appeal can be made to the District Collector and the District Chairman of A.P. WALT Act within 60 days from the date of However, the petitioners straightaway filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging the want of 7. receipt of this order. 5 HBKM,J W.P.No.38741 of2022 jurisdiction of the respondent herein in passing the impugned proceedings dated 28.10.2022. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioners are now referred to the appellate authority to raise all their objections on the merits of the case by way of preferring an appeal against the impugned proceedings of the 4^'' respondent dated 28.10.2022 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such appeal from the writ petitioners, the appellate authority/the 2^^^ respondent herein, by giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and upon verification of the records, appropriate decision shall be taken in the said appeal of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of filing of the appeal. The appellate authority shall go into the objections and other contentions raised by all the parties concerned in the said appeal. 8. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector-cum District Level Authority, Anantapuramu, Anantapuram District. Velagapudi 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Divisional Level Authority, Anantapuramu, Anantapuram District. The Tahsildar-cum-Mandal Level Authority, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapuram District. One CC to Sri N Aswartha Narayana Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] One CC to Sri E Anjana Reddy Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies i 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. TF HIGH COURT u DATED:12/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 38741 OF 2022 ^3 0 AUG 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS