Disposed

gangisetti Ramulu v. M.R.O.

Telangana HC24 Mar 2011WP/7209/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Revenue Officer cannot regulate drilling or seize a well without first issuing a notification declaring the area over-exploited under Section 11(1) of the Act. The court directed the authority to issue the notification before passing further regulatory orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition disposed of; authority directed to issue notification under Section 11(1) of the Act before passing future orders.

gangisetti Ramulu Vs M.R.O. — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED: THIS the 24^th day of March 2011

¶3

PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY

¶5

W.P.No. 7209 of 2003

¶6

Between: Gangisetti Ramulu and The Mandal Revenue Officer, Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District and others

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY

¶10

W.P.No. 7209 of 2003

¶11

Order:

¶12

The petitioner, who owns agricultural land to an extent of Ac.12.35 guntas in Sy.No.668 of Koratikal Sivaru village, Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District, filed the present writ petition questioning the order of the first respondent – the Mandal Revenue Officer, Munugode in Proceedings No.A/353/2003 dated: 28-3-2003, whereby the Mandal Revenue Officer seized the newly drilled bore well of the petitioner for a period of three months i.e., upto 30-06-2003 observing that his case will be reviewed and considered for opening of the bore well for agricultural operations of Kharif season of 2003 – 2004, after obtaining technical opinion.

¶13

2. It is stated by the petitioner that the above order came to be passed in the following circumstances: Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who own agricultural lands are cultivating the same through their open well, which is at a distance of 90 meters from the bore well drilled by the petitioner, made a representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Munugode on 8-2-2003 marking copies to the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer. As there was no action on their representation, the fourth respondent filed W.P.No. 4923 of 2003, which was disposed of by this court on 12-03-2003 directing the respondents therein to consider the representation of petitioner therein, the present respondent No. 4, and intimate the action taken thereon, to him. In compliance to the said order, the order impugned herein came to be passed.

¶14

3. Now, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner stating that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the

¶15

complaint. Section 10 (1) of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for brevity “the Act”) prohibits sinking of a well for the purpose of irrigation or drinking purpose within a distance of 250 meters of public drinking water source without applying for permission to the authority. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have also filed O.S.No. 189 of 2001 before the leaned Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda for injunction. On survey of the lands, it was found that the third respondent occupied a portion of the land belonging to the petitioner and the present complaint is filed only to harass him. The bore drilled by the petitioner is 200 meters away from the well of the third and fourth respondents.

¶16

4. In the counter filed by the first respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer, while reiterating the contents of the order passed by him, it is stated that W.P.No.4293 of 2003 earlier filed by respondent No. 4 was disposed of on 12.3.2003. The petitioner herein has drilled a new bore well in his land in Sy.No.668 and installed a submersible pump set for extracting ground water, which is flowing through the petitioner’s fallow land. Due to the continuous extraction of the ground water, the water level of the irrigation well of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has deteriorated and in that process, their sweet orange garden is withering due to non-availability of sufficient water during summer. Therefore, a drastic step was required to arrest the irregular ground water flow and accordingly, the order impugned was passed seizing the bore well for a period of three months. Further, the Government have also launched a special drive to motivate public under “Jala Chaitanya Sadassulu” through out the State from 5-4-2003 to 14-4-2003. to motivate the general public to save water at every level; develop increase of ground water and also for strict implementation of the Act. The petitioner violated the Act by not

¶17

obtaining permission under Rule 12 of The A.P. Water, Land and Trees Rules, 2002 (for brevity “the Rules”), for drilling a new bore well near to the existing well, which would result in heavy damage to the standing crops. The petitioner submitted that under the above circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed.

¶18

5. S. 8 of the Act provides for registration of a well from the date of commencement of the Act by the owner of the land; S.9 prohibits pumping of water in certain areas, which is likely to cause damage to the level of ground water or cause damage to the natural resources 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; S.10 deals with obtaining permission for sinking a well near a drinking water source and S.11 deals with over exploited areas and regulation of digging of bore wells. 6. S. 11 (3) of the Act contemplates that from the date of declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 11, declaring particular ground water basin as over exploited 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, no well shall be sunk in such areas except wells sunk for public drinking purpose. Sub-section (4) deals with issue of guide-lines; sub-section (5) provides for review by the authority from time to time the ground water and results achieved after taking the measures under sub-section (4) for revocation of declaration of over exploited area basins as made under sub-section (1) and permit sinking of wells duly specifying the number of wells to be sunk, depth of the well, distance between two adjoining wells and other conditions, as deemed fit after satisfying itself that such sinking shall not adversely affect the public drinking water source.

¶19

7. The respondents in their counter no where stated that any such declaration was made under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act declaring the particular ground water basin as over exploited. Only on such declaration, the respondents can regulate drilling of bore wells and permission has to be obtained under Rule 12 of the Rules for drilling a new bore well.

¶20

8. This court while disposing of W.P.No. 4293 of 2003 observed that “the respondents are under obligation to stop such drawing of water when it affects public distribution system or such digging bore well without obtaining any permission after issuing notification, if any, will cause great hardship to the petitioner”. In spite of the observations of this Court, as referred to above, the respondents either in the impugned order or in the counter has not specified about notifying of any area prohibiting drilling of bore wells and the period for which such prohibition operates.

¶21

9. In the circumstances, having regard to the to the fat that the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer is only for a period of three months i.e., upto 30—06—2003 and as thereafter it ceased to operate, before passing any further order by the authority declaring particular ground water basin as over exploited, they are under an obligation to issue notification under section 11 (1) of the Act to take regulatory measures, and pass such appropriate orders as and when necessary, to augment water resources in the area. 10. With the directions as above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

A. GOPAL REDDY, J.

¶23

*March 24, 2011. BVS

gangisetti Ramulu v. M.R.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

gangisetti Ramulu v. M.R.O.

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

Kolapalli Udayabhaskara Rao Vs Chinnam Gopala Prasad

Smt. Mekala Rukminamma, Vs Konijan Lakshmaiah (Died)

Addanki Venkata Subbaiah Vs Parvataneni Krishna Prasad

Thota Satyanarayana, s/o Rajesham Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapalli

G. Sasikala, Vs The Collector, Chittoor District

Khaira Bhooma Goud, Vs The District Collector