A Bharathi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Sept 2025WP/21970/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana HC, WP 21970/2021, decided 03-09-2025 (E.V. Venugopal J): mandamus under Article 226 to stop bore-well digging by private respondents at H.No.10-3-274 Humayun Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad without permission; alleged breach of Section 10, Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (WALTA); online permission limited to 400 meters depth exceeded; bore-well/rig seized 13.09.2021 by Mandal Revenue Inspector; Tahsildar Asifnagar Mandal; writ petition CLOSED without costs after court informed action already initiated; no cases cited; no monetary quantum.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; the writ petition was closed with no orders as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, were ordered to stand closed as a sequel. ¶¶46

A Bharathi Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; the writ petition was closed with no orders as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, were ordered to stand closed as a sequel.

¶¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in not taking steps to stop the digging of a bore-well by respondent Nos.4 and 5 at H.No.10-3-274, Humayun Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad in accordance with the Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution, warranting a writ of mandamus and consequential action against respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶¶17

Court's answer

Since the representation made by the petitioner had been considered and action had already been initiated by respondent No.2, the Court deemed it appropriate to close the present writ petition.

¶¶45

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is closed and there shall be no orders as to costs.

¶¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.21970 of 2021 (A Bharathi v. The State of Telangana and others), decided 03.09.2025 by Justice E.V. Venugopal, High Court for the State of Telangana. The petitioner, stated to be the immediate neighbour affected by the digging, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the revenue and police authorities to stop respondent Nos.4 and 5 from digging a bore-well at H.No.10-3-274, Humayun Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad without permission, alleging violation of Section 10 of the Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. When the matter was heard, the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reported on instructions that (i) the Mandal Revenue Inspector's enquiry found that no permission had ever been issued for a bore-well at the subject premises; (ii) respondent No.4 had applied online (ID.No.DAWO22LOOO22374) and was granted permission to dig only up to a depth of 400 meters, which he violated; and (iii) the bore-well was seized on 13.09.2021 and action initiated against respondent No.4 under the Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act. Holding that the petitioner's representation had been considered and action already initiated by respondent No.2, the Court closed the writ petition, with no orders as to costs, and directed that miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.

¶1

t^32ee I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:21970 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

A Bharathi, Wo. A. Ramanjaneyulu, Aged about. 27 years, Occ. Housewife, Fi"/o. H. No. 10-3-2741A (Part-GF), Beside Roots Knowledge School, Humayun Nagar, Mandipatnam, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶12

2 The Tahsildar,, Asifnagar Mandal, Vijay Nagar Colony, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Station House Officer,, Humayun Nagar Police Station, Shanti Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 Humayun Ali Mirza, S/o. Late. Lt. Col. Y. A. Miza, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 10-3-274/D/1, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶15

5 Mis. Super Constructions,, Rep. its, Managing Partner, Md. lmran Khan S/o. Asif Ali Khan, aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 10-1^- 13/3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad.

¶16

..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or writ, more appropriately one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein in not taking steps to stop digging of bore-well in the premises of the Respondents 4 and 5 bearing^H. N. 10-3-274 Humayun Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana Water Land and Trees Act, 2002 is as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the Articles 14, 15, 16 of the Constitution of lndia and against the principles of natural justice, consequently direct the Respondents 7th to take

¶18

action against the Respondents 4 and 5 in accordance with^{lzLr r, in the interestof} justice.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

' Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circu nstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the writ^petition, the^High Courl ray^{be pleasedto} direct the Respondents to take action against the Respon^jents 4 and 5ⁱⁿ accordance with law,^pending disposal of the Writ Petition in tl'e interest of^justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. A. MUJEEB

¶22

Counsel for..the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUI:

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4&5: -- Nort€ ft(rca<€9'

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE^{E.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.2l97O of 2O2L

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition, under^{Article 226 ofthe}

¶30

Constitution of India,^{is filed seeking the following relief:}

¶31

'.^. ..to^{pass an order or u.trit more appropriatelgone} in the nafitre of Wft^{of Mandamus declaingtte action of} tle Respondents lrcrein in^{not taking steps to stop} digging of boreuell in^{the premises of the Respondents4} and 5 beaing H.No.10-3-274^{Humayun Nagar'} Mehd.ipatnam Hgderabad in^{acardane uiththe} proubions of tle Telangana^Water I'and^{arudTrees Act,} 2OO2 is as itlegat arbitrary^{uiolatiue of the Articles 14, 15} 16 of the Constittttion of lrdia^{and against tle principles} of natural^{justice an sequentlgdirect tle Respondentsto} take action against the^{Respondents4and 5in} occordance u.tith lou in^{ttte interestof justie and mag} pass.. . . "

¶32

The brief facts of the^{case are that in the month of}

¶33

April, 2O2l when^{respondent Nos.4 and 5 tried to dig the} bore-welt in the^{premisesbearing H.No'10-3-274,Humayun} Nagar, Mehdipatnam,^{Hyderabad by using huge machineries} and vehicles without^{obtaining permission from the} concerned authorities, the^{local residentshave objectedthe} same and thereafter,^{respondent Nos.4and 5 have stopped} digging bore-well. On^{O5.09.2021 being Sunday, respondent}

¶34

Page 2 of4

¶35

Nos.4 and 5 again brought the huge bore-wel containers arld sta-rted digging the bore-well. The petiliono contacted respondent No.3 and lodged a oral complainl about the illega1 activity and after thorough enquiry it is lound that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not obtained an1 permission from the concerned authorities and they are also proceeding to lay the bore-well in violation of Section 10 of 'VALTA Act, 2OO2. In order to curb unhealthy competition t I tap water from deeper layers of ground water and to mair:l ain ground water permission from the concerned authoritir:r has to be obtained and the Mandal Revenue Officers shc uld ensure that the rig operated 1n their jurisdiction of n :w wells is registered with the concerned authorities and rr :ll shall be drilled beyond l2O meter depth. Respondent^{</sup> os.4 and 5 have also violated land use zone provisions a rd effected persons have filed cases against them before the tuthorities. The petitioner herein is the immediate neie^-rbour and alfected due to the illegal digging of bore-well bJ, respondent Nos.4 and 5. On 06.09.2O2 I petitioner als,t personally requested respondent No.2 to take action in that egard. But}

¶36

Page 3 of4

¶37

respondent No.2 has not acted upon. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶38

Heard learned counsel appearing for tl.e petitioner a-nd learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and. 2 and perused the record.

¶39

None appears for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶40

tearned counsel appearing for the petitioner^would submit that the consistent efforts^made to obtain^necessa-ry instructions from the petitioner have^gone in^{vain. Hence,} seeks to adjudicate the matter on merits.

¶41

Learned Assistant Government^Pleader for^{Revenue on} instructions would submit that based on^{the complaint} lodged by the petitioner, the Mandal^{RevenueInspectorhas} conducted detailed enquiry and submitted^{that his ofhce has} never issued the permission for digging^{borewell at the} premises bearing H.No.10-3-274, Huma5run^Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. Later on, respondent^{No.4 has} applied for permission for digging bore-well in^{online uide}

¶42

Page 4 of4

¶43

ID.No.DAWO22LOOO22374, dated Ol .06.2( 2l and

¶44

permission was granted for digging only to a d€ pth of 4OO meters and since the same was violated by respr,r rdent No.4, the Mandal Revenue Inspector has seized the r rre-well on 13.O9.2021 and also initiated action against resp( ndent No.4 as per The Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2004. Hence, seeks to pass appropriate orders.

¶45

7 . In the light of the aforesaid submission s since the representation made by the petitioner has been considered and action has already been initiated by respr,r.dent No.2, this Court deems it appropriate to close the 6 resent writ petition.

¶46