SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 29996

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
A Bharathi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 21970/2021



THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

WRIT PETITION No.21970 of 2021

ORDER :

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“….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 borewell in the premises of the Respondents 4 and 5 bearing H.No.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 India and against the principles of natural justice consequently direct the Respondents to take action against the Respondents 4 and 5 in accordance with law in the interest of justice and may

pass.…”

2. The brief facts of the case are that in the month of April, 2021 when respondent Nos.4 and 5 tried to dig the bore-well in the premises bearing H.No.10-3-274, Humayun Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad by using huge machineries and vehicles without obtaining permission from the concerned authorities, the local residents have objected the same and thereafter, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have stopped digging bore-well. On 05.09.2021 being Sunday, respondent

Nos.4 and 5 again brought the huge bore-well containers and started digging the bore-well. The petitioner contacted respondent No.3 and lodged a oral complaint about the illegal activity and after thorough enquiry it is found that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not obtained any permission from the concerned authorities and they are also proceeding to lay the bore-well in violation of Section 10 of WALTA Act, 2002. In order to curb unhealthy competition to tap water from deeper layers of ground water and to maintain ground water permission from the concerned authorities has to be obtained and the Mandal Revenue Officers should ensure that the rig operated in their jurisdiction of new wells is registered with the concerned authorities and well shall be drilled beyond 120 meter depth. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have also violated land use zone provisions and effected persons have filed cases against them before the authorities. The petitioner herein is the immediate neighbour and affected due to the illegal digging of bore-well by respondent Nos.4 and 5. On 06.09.2021 petitioner also personally requested respondent No.2 to take action in that regard. But respondent No.2 has not acted upon. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the record.

4. None appears for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the consistent efforts made to obtain necessary instructions from the petitioner have gone in vain. Hence, seeks to adjudicate the matter on merits.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the Mandal Revenue Inspector has conducted detailed enquiry and submitted that his office has never issued the permission for digging borewell at the premises bearing H.No.10-3-274, Humayun Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. Later on, respondent No.4 has applied for permission for digging bore-well in online vide ID.No.DAW022100022374, dated 01.06.2021 and permission was granted for digging only to a depth of 400 meters and since the same was violated by respondent No.4, the Mandal Revenue Inspector has seized the bore-well on 13.09.2021 and also initiated action against respondent No.4 as per The Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2004.

Hence, seeks to pass appropriate orders.

7. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, since the representation made by the petitioner has been considered and action has already been initiated by respondent No.2, this Court deems it appropriate to close the present writ petition.

8. Ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top