APHC010150682023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7672/2023 Between: 1. AVULA BRAHMANANDA RAO, S/O RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 9-109/A, PERIKAPADU VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW PALNADU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NARASARAOPETA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPETA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW PALNADU DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, APSPDCL, OPP. BUS- STAND ROAD, SATTENAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW PALNADU DISTRICT. 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, APSPDCL, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW PALNADU DISTRICT. 7. AVULA BAJI KISHORE, S/O. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 8-89, PERIKAPADU VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW PALNADU 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 writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking action against the illegal well dug by the 7threspondent in Sy.No.359-2, Dodleru Village, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District which is adjacent to the Zilla Parishad road from Perikapadu to Dodleru Village/without obtaining any permissions from the concerned authorities under the provisions of A.P. WALTA Act, 2002 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to remove the illegal well dug by the 7th respondent and disconnect the power supply to the said well dug in Sy.No.359-2, Dodleru Village, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 respondents to consider the representation dated. 14.06.2021 of the petitioner for remove the illegal well dug by the 7threspondent and disconnect the power supply which is the located land in Sy.No.359-2, Dodleru Village, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District which is adjacen. to the Zilla Parishad road from Perikapadu to DodleruVillage pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 4. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA 5. V V SATISH The Court made the following: ORDER: Declaring the action of the respondents in not taking action against the illegal well dug by the 7th respondent in Sy.No.359-2, Dodleru Village, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District, which is adjacent to the Zilla Parishad road from Perikapadu to Dodleru Village, without obtaining any permissions from the concerned authorities under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh WALTA Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act, 2002‟), as illegal, arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri B.V.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Somiseety Ganesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL, Smt.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, Sri V.Satya Narayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Ms.Abhigna, learned counsel representing Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that despite bringing to the notice of the authorities concerned about the well dug by the unofficial respondent illegally and to disconnect the power supply to the said well, by submitting a representation dated 14.06.2021, no action has been initiated by the respondents. He further submitted that if the well is not closed, much and irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to the petitioner. He further submitted that it would suffice for the time being if a direction is given to the authorities concerned to take steps in removing the illegal well dug in the subject property in accordance with law in a time bound manner, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. On the other hand, Ms.Abhigna, learned counsel representing Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent submitted that the bore well was dug after obtaining necessary permission and without conducting survey and enquiry, the petitioner as well as the respondents cannot say that the well was dug illegally. He would submit that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for official respondents on counter, contended that the unofficial respondent No.7 obtained permission under the provisions of the Act, 2002, for digging well in Sy.No.353/2 of Dodleru Village, but the well was dug in Sy.No.359/2 without obtaining any permission from the official respondent No.4. He further submitted that necessary steps would be taken by the respondent authorities to remove the unauthorized bore well dug by the unofficial respondent, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 7. The contention of the petitioner is that the unofficial respondent No.7 had dug a bore well in the subject land without obtaining any permission from the respondent No.4. The survey report of respondent No.4 filed in support of the writ affidavit would also indicate that there is a bore well adjacent to the road of Dodleru to Perikapadu encroaching 2 feet of Z.P. road. The respondents submitted that they would follow the procedure contemplated under the Act, 2002 and they would take steps in removing the well dug illegally in accordance with law. Now, the dispute is whether the unofficial respondent has obtained any permission to dug well or not and whether the survey has been conducted as contemplated under the Act, 2002 or not. However, this Court is not inclined to go into the said aspects. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, without going into the merits and demerits of the matter, is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The respondent authority concerned shall take necessary steps against the well dug by the unofficial respondent No.7, if any, contrary to law, by following the provisions of the AP WALTA Act, 2002, by giving proper notice inviting explanation to all the parties concerned and an opportunity of being heard within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 05th November, 2025 RKS