THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms. Chintalapani Avani Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in causing interference and threatening the petitioner from using the water from the well situated in his lands in Sy.Nos.51/B and 52/A near Hussainmiya Vagu of Kalvasrirampur Village and Mandal, Peddapalli District (erstwhile Karimnagar District) which is in existence since 30 years.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner dug the well for cultivation about 30 years back and using the well for cultivation. Now the respondents, without following due process of law as contemplated under the Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for Short “WALTA Act”), are trying to seize the well and requested to direct the respondents to follow the procedure for interfering with the possession of the petitioner.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the counter filed by the respondents submits that the petitioner made application in the year, 2013 for digging of open well for agricultural purpose in the land in Sy.Nos.51 and 52 situated at Srirampur Village and Mandal. After conducting tests by Ground Water Department, the application of the petitioner was not recommended for digging of well by the Ground Water Department vide Ref.No.349/T(1)/2011/153, dated 07.06.2013 and the same was informed to the petitioner by the respondent No.3 vide Ref.No.B/357/2013, dated 20.06.2013 for rejecting the request of the petitioner in Form-4 as provided under WALTA Act. In spite of the same, the petitioner without any permission has dug the open well and the same was disturbing the Government water source and also strengthened his well. In view of the same, the Tahsildar, Srirampur issued notice to the petitioner vide Ref.No.B/357/2013, dated 17.11.2014 intimating him that he is digging the well without any valid permission and directed him to submit his explanation within seven (7) days, otherwise, the authorities will seize the well. In view of the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that since the paddy crop raised by him was damaged due to scarcity of water, he dug the well by spending Rs.10,00,000/- (in words Rupees Ten Lakhs only). As the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing, the respondent authorities have seized the well according to the norms of WALTA Act. While seizing the well, the respondent authorities have followed the procedure as contemplated under WALTA Act, hence, there is no merit in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not disclosed the earlier application made by the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority in the year, 2013 and also notice issued by the authorities for seizing of the well and at the time of arguments also, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not disputing the notice received by the petitioner for seizing of well.

6. In view of the same, there is no merit in the writ petition to pass direction to the official respondents as not to interfere with the digging of the well of the petitioner. The petitioner have right to make appropriate application for permission from the respondents as per WALTA Act. Thereafter, the authorities will pass appropriate orders. Without making proper application and without having any valid permission, the petitioner cannot take the water from the well dig by the petitioner.

7. In view of the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner t