APHC010107192024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5637/2024 Between: Vakati Ravindra Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. M.VINOD KUMAR 3. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 in not considering my representations dated 30.01.2025 01.02.2025 and 10.02.2025 and not taking action on the respondents No.5 and 6 for illegal opening of seized bore well in Sy.No.32-3 to an extent of Ac.5.60 cents of Nidhanawada Village, Singanamala Manda,l Anantapuram District and not closing seized bore well is illegal, arbitrary contrary to provisions of A.P.WALT Act, 2002 and principles of natural justice and also offends Art 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders...” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land in Survey No. 31-3, admeasuring Ac. 6.60 cents, situated in Nidhanawada village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuram District. The petitioner has a borewell in this land, which has been in existence from the past three decades and serves as the sole source of water for irrigation. While things stood thus, the respondents No. 5 and 6 dug a new borewell in close proximity to the petitioner’s existing borewell without obtaining prior permission from the concerned authorities, as required under the A.P.WALTA Act, 2002 and they have been conducting agricultural operations using this unauthorized borewell. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No. 4 i.e., the Tahsildar, requesting him to take action against the illegal borewell of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. After conducting an enquiry, the respondent No. 4 issued proceedings against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 dated 12.01.2022 and seized the unauthorized borewell, confirming that it is in violation of the WALTA Act, 2002. 3. He further submits that, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 unlawfully reopened the seized and unauthorized borewell and resumed agricultural operations, causing water scarcity for the petitioner. For which, the petitioner submitted representations on 01.02.2025, 03.02.2025, and 10.02.2025, requesting the concerned authorities to seize the unauthorized borewell. Even after receipt of the representations of the petitioner, the concerned authorities neither initiated any action nor responded to the petitioner’s representations. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader furnished written instructions issued by the 4th respondent, which state as follows: (a) “Hence basing on the complaint notice has been issued to Smt pavithra W/o sri viswanatha reddy and sri Narasimha reddy S/o china obireddy, resides of nidhanawada village vide ref 3rd cited duly informing that to submit their explanation that as to why the seized bore well re- opened in Sy.No.32-3, Ex.5.60 Acres of Nidhanawada village without any prior permission form the competent authority and why could not take necessary action for violating of the norms of A.P.Walta Act,2002. (b) It is submitted that so far no explanation is recived from Smt pavitra W/o sri viswanatha reddy and sri narsimha reddy S/o china obireddy after lapse of stipulated time period. Basing on the facts and enquiry the mandal A.P.walta act committee will take necessary action as per A.P.walta act, 2002. (c) He further submits that the 4th respondent herein after receipt of thes representation of the petitioner acted upon and issued notices to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and matter under enquiry for appropriate orders”. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition can be disposed of by directing the 4th respondent to take action pursuant to the notice issued against respondents No. 5 and 6 regarding the determination of whether their borewell violates the provisions of A.P. WALTA Act, 2002 or not and further directed to the 4th respondent to pass an appropriate order after considering the petitioner’s representation and the explanation submitted by respondents No. 5 and 6, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 06.03.2025 kkllkk 171 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.5637 of 2025 06.03.2025 kkllkk