APHC010552832024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 85/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the order dt. 16-10- 2024 passed in W.P.No. 14296 of 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Honble Court, the appellant herein begs to present this memorandum of writ appeal for the following among other Between: 1. RADHA KRISHNA CHOWDARY,, S/O LATE NARASIMHA CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS OCC RETIRED TEACHER R/O H NO. 1-36, PANDA VEEDHI, BURJA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT AP ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT A P, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUEDIVISIONALOFFICERRDO, , BURJA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BURJA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE AP, 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.85 of 2025 EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM AP. 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION BURJA, APEPDCL, BURJA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM A.P. 7. SMT SINGIPALLI DAMAYANTHI, W/O LATE RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 69YEARS HOUSE WIFE R/O H.NO 59-4-81, NAGARALA VEEDHI, MALKAPURAM, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT AP. 8. THE BURJA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, BURJA VILLAGE BURJA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. THE MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD MPDO, BURJA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. (RESPONDENT NOS. 3.8 AND 9 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THIS WRIT APPEAL) ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order Rc.No.l 16/2013 A, dt.26.05.2023 issued by the Tahsildar, Burja, Srikakulam District, the 4th respondent herein and pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to permit me to file the following documents 1) Petition dt. 10.04.2023, 2) Report of MRI, Burja dt.24.05.2023, 3) Notice dt.21.06.2023, 4) Letter of District Collector dt. 17.07.2023, 5) Report of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Srikakulam dt.31.07.2023, 6) Endorsement dt.01.08.2023 along with sketches issued by Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Srikakulam 7) Letter of RDO, Srikakulam Rc.No.l333/2023/F dt.2] .08.2023 and 8) Letter of RDO, Srikakulam Rc.No.61/2024/G dt.12.01.2024 as additional material papers in W.A No.85/2025 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.85 of 2025 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 3. B V ANJANEYULU 4. Y KOTESWARA RAO 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.85 of 2025 The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The appellant herein is engaged in agricultural operations over his site situated in Sy.No.195-1 of Burja Revenue Village, Srikakulam District. For the purpose of such agricultural operations, he had dug a borewell. Subsequently, the 7th respondent, who owns the adjoining land, had dug a borewell within the prohibited distance, which is said to be less than the permissible distance and without obtaining permission for such borewell under the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002. On a complaint given by the appellant, the order of clearance earlier given by the Mandal Revenue Officer was cancelled. The 7th respondent, after keeping silent for some time, had again approached the Mandal Revenue Officer for such clearance and the same has been given. 2. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.14296 of 2023. Initially, the learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 20.06.2023, had stayed the said order. Subsequently, the order came to be vacated on 21.10.2023. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order of vacation dated 21.10.2023 has approached this Court by way of the present appeal. 3. Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge had simply vacated the interim order without assigning any reasons and the same required to be set aside. 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.85 of 2025 4. On the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the 7th respondent had dug a borewell, which is within a distance of 25 mts from the existing borewell of the appellant and the same is impermissible. In view of the guidelines laid down in G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 23.03.2021, a minimum distance of 75 mts must be maintained between the existing borewell and proposed borewell. 5. Apart from this, learned counsel for the appellant would also contend that no borewell can be dug without prior permission and the impugned order is seeking to ratify the existing borewell and same is impermissible. 6. Learned counsel for the 7th respondent would contend that the appellant has dug two bore wells. The 1st borewell in Sy.No.200 is at a distance of 91 mts, while the borewell in S.Y.No.198 is at a distance of 25.3 mts. However, the borewell in Sy.No.198 is also an unauthorized borewell and as such, the distance from such an unauthorized borewell cannot be the basis for prohibiting the 7th respondent from digging a borewell. 7. In this view of the matter, this Writ Appeal is disposed of with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, to depute a representative of the rank of Tahsildar to verify whether the borewell of the appellant in Sy.No.198 is authorized or not. If it is not authorized, it would be open to the 7th respondent to go ahead for obtaining necessary power connection for such a borewell. 6 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.85 of 2025 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would also contend that the borewell in Sy.No.198 was dug in the year 1975 and as such there was no need for obtaining any approvals or permissions. The Tahsildar nominated by the Revenue Officer shall go into this issue also. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J Dt.25.11.2025 JLV 7 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.85 of 2025 63 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL No: 85 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 25.11.2025 JLV