Disposed

B. Gani Reddy v. The District Collector

Telangana HC24 Feb 2011WP/25584/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged orders directing closure of bore wells alleged to affect public drinking water. The court upheld the District Collector's jurisdiction under relevant Acts but observed that a prior notice to the petitioner for objections was mandatory before passing such orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to issue notice to petitioner for objections before passing order for closure.

B. Gani Reddy Vs The District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶2

W.P.No.25584 of 2002

¶3

Date of Order: 24-02-2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

B.Gangi Reddy

¶6

..Petitioner and 1. The District Collector, Ananthapur and others. ..Respondents

¶7

The Court made the following Order:

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE

¶9

A.GOPAL REDDY

¶10

W.P.No.25584 of 2002

¶11

Oral order:

¶12

Questioning the proceedings of the District Collector, Ananthapur— 1^st respondent in D.Dis.7275/2002/02, dated 02-12-2002 directing the M.R.O., Nallacheruvu and Deputy Director, Ground Water, Ananthapur to take necessary action duly following the procedure and report compliance, the present writ petition has been filed, wherein this Court suspended the impugned proceedings.

¶13

The petitioner dug a bore well in Sy.No.222 and Sri Malli Reddy— 4^th respondent dug a bore well in Sy.No.225/3.

¶14

The petitioner has made an application to the M.R.O. seeking permission for laying a pipe line from the bore well situated in Sy.No.222 to Sy.No.231/3 through the Sy.Nos.225/3, 225/4 and 225/5 of Jogammapeta of Nallacheruvu Mandal. The M.R.O. through the Mandal Surveyor enquired into the matter and submitted a report stating that the bore well dug by the petitioner and the bore of C.Malli Reddy—4^th respondent are situated at a distance of 28 feet to one another. It is also stated that another bore well supplying drinking water to the villagers is in existence; and the bore wells of the petitioner and the 4^th respondent are within the distance of 170 feet to the bore well, which is supplying drinking water to the villagers. The M.R.O. has further stated that the 4^th respondent highhandedly fitted the electric motor and using the bore water for irrigation purpose and there is law and order problem in the village between the two groups. Basing on the report submitted by the 3^rd respondent, the 1^st respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 0212-2002 ordered for closure of the bore wells of both the petitioner and also the 4^th respondent by duly following the procedure.

¶15

Admittedly, no action has been taken by the 3^rd respondent or the Deputy Director, Ground Water, Ananthapur pursuant to the proceedings of the 1^st respondent.

¶16

In the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, Ananthapur— 1^st respondent it is stated that there is acute drinking water problem in the area and drawal of water from private bore wells cannot be permitted at the cost of public water source. Due to the extraction of water from the bore wells of the petitioner and the 4^th respondent there is consequential reduction in ground water levels and depletion in the out put of the public water source and there is an apprehension of law and order situation due to unrest among the people, as there is shortage of drinking water. The District Collector—1^st respondent who is the Ex-Officio Chairman of the District Level Water Land and Trees Authority under Rule 8 of the A.P. Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Rules, 2002 (for short “The Rules”) is the competent authority to issue necessary instructions in the matter to the M.R.O.—3^rd respondent, who is the Ex-Officio Chairman at the Mandal level under Rule 9 of the Rules.

¶17

On examining the report, the 1^st respondent directed the 3^rd respondent to take necessary steps for closure of bore wells belonging to the petitioner as well the 4^th respondent, in view of adverse affect to the public water drinking source; and the present writ petition is filed only to pre-empt the action from being taken for closure of the bore wells of the petitioner as well the 4^th respondent. The writ petition is premature, which cannot be entertained and prays for dismissal.

¶18

Admittedly, the proceedings issued by the District Collector—1^st respondent are the internal correspondence between the District Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer and the steps needed to be taken for providing drinking water to the villagers. Even under Section 147 Cr.P.C. whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from the report of a police officer or upon other information, that a dispute is likely to cause a breach of

¶19

the peace exists regarding any alleged right of user of any land or water within his local jurisdiction, he can pass appropriate orders for the time being in force.

¶20

Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) authorises the protection of public drinking water sources. Sub-section (1) provides notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the Authority may, on the advice of the Technical Officer, that may existing well is found to be adversely affecting any public drinking water source, after giving the owner a reasonable opportunity of being heard by an order, prohibit the extraction of water for commercial, industrial, irrigation or any other purposes from such well for a period of not more than six months which after review may be extended for a further period of not more than six months at a time. The proviso to sub-section (1) provides that irrigation well with standing crop shall be taken as last priority for such purpose. Sub-section (2) provides giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, by an order requesting him to stop the extraction of water and close or seal off such well forthwith either temporarily or permanently. Sub-section (3) contemplates the procedure for making an enquiry by the authority constituted under section 3 of the Act.

¶21

In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the District Collector—1^st respondent, who is the Ex-Officio Chairman, is well within his powers to issue such directions which cannot be said as arbitrary and illegal or without jurisdiction.

¶22

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with an observation that before passing any order the respondents have to issue necessary notice to the writ petitioner calling objections and after considering the same necessary orders have to be passed as per the Act. No costs.

¶23

_________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 24-02-2011 Murthy

B. Gani Reddy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Gani Reddy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cherukumalli Chinna Bhadraiah Vs Kothapally Venkataramana

Muneni Lakshmi Parvathi Vs Myneni Koteswara Rao

The Gram Panchayat, Avanigadda, Vs Yakkati Veenadevi (Died)

A.Gangaiah, Vs The Joint Collector

A. Narasavva Vs The Joint Collector

Kasa Nagamuni Reddy, Vs The District Collector