APHC010610742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 31809/2025 Between: 1. BUKYA KRISHNA NAIK,, S/O BUKYA CHINNA PIKNU NAIK AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,R/O H.NO.7 THANDA,ULINDAKONDA POST, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting to grant bore permission vide endorsement dated 23.10.2025, to the petitioners agricultural land to an extent of Ac.3.92 cents in Sy.No.632, L.P.M. 888, situated in Ulindakonda village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District, by referring the pendency of the Second Appeal No.63 of 2023, ignoring the title and possession of the petitioner over the agricultural land is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the Article 21, 300 consequently set aside the rejection order pas IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 31809/2025 BUKYA KRISHNA NAIK,, S/O BUKYA CHINNA PIKNU NAIK AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,R/O H.NO.7-167, KOLAM PALLI THANDA,ULINDAKONDA POST, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. THE TAHSILDAR, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in cting to grant bore permission vide endorsement dated 23.10.2025, to the petitioners agricultural land to an extent of Ac.3.92 cents in Sy.No.632, L.P.M. 888, situated in Ulindakonda village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District, by the Second Appeal No.63 of 2023, ignoring the title and possession of the petitioner over the agricultural land is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the Article 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent vide IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3208] BUKYA KRISHNA NAIK,, S/O BUKYA CHINNA PIKNU NAIK AGED 167, KOLAM PALLI THANDA,ULINDAKONDA POST, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AT THE TAHSILDAR, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in cting to grant bore permission vide endorsement dated 23.10.2025, to the petitioners agricultural land to an extent of Ac.3.92 cents in Sy.No.632, L.P.M. 888, situated in Ulindakonda village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District, by the Second Appeal No.63 of 2023, ignoring the title and possession of the petitioner over the agricultural land is arbitrary, illegal, A of the Constitution of India and sed by the 3rd respondent vide 2 endorsement dated 23.10.2025and direct the 3rd respondent to grant bore permission to the petitioners agricultural land to an extent of Ac.3.92 cents in Sy.No.632, L.P.M. 888, situated in Ulindakonda village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District, in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to grant bore permission to the petitioner’s agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 3.92 cents in Sy.No.632, L.P.M. 888, situated in Ulindakonda village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District, forthwith, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P MALLIKHARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting to grant bore permission vide endorsement dated 23.10.2025, to the petitioners agricultural land to an extent of Ac.3.92 cents in Sy.No.632, L.P.M. 888, situated in Ulindakonda village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District, by referring the pendency of the Second Appeal No.63 of 2023, ignoring the title and possession of the petitioner over the agricultural land is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the Article 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent vide endorsement dated 23.10.2025and direct the 3rd respondent to grant bore permission to the petitioners agricultural land to an extent of Ac.3.92 cents in Sy.No.632, L.P.M. 888, situated in Ulindakonda village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District and pass” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 23.10.2025 of the 3rd respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner has made an application for permission to drill a bore-well in agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3.92 cents in Sy.No.632. The said application was rejected only on the ground that Second Appeal No.63 of 2023 is pending before this Hon’ble Court and that in I.A. No.1 of 2023 an interim suspension was granted by this Court. In fact, the elder brother of the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance, and the said suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the elder brother approached the first 4 appellate Court and the first appeal was decreed in favour of the elder brother of the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the Second Appeal before this Hon’ble Court and the same was entertained and interim suspension of the decree granted in favour of the elder brother of the petitioner was also granted. When that being the position and as the petitioner is continued in possession of the property for cultivation purpose, the petitioner has made an application under the provisions of the Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and Section 10 only deals with the application made by persons, and there is a prohibition with regard to drilling of bore-wells based on the distance. The Act provides that the owner alone need not make the application and in fact the petitioner, being in possession of the subject property, has made the application. It was also considered that this Hon’ble Court has granted interim suspension in favour of the petitioner. When that being the position, the respondents ought not to have rejected the application on the ground of pendency of the Second Appeal. 5. Considering the said submissions and on perusal of the provisions of the Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, nowhere does the Act provide that only an owner with title has to file an application for drilling a bore-well. In fact, the Act specifically provides that any person is entitled to make an application under Section 10 of the Act and the authorities have to consider the same and pass appropriate orders based on the provisions of the Act. 5 6. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside, remanding the matter to the 3rd respondent once again to consider the application filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH Dt.18.11.2025 PNS