V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a resident of Parvathapur village. She is aggrieved by the action of the respondents namely, Deputy Executive Engineer, Rural Water Scheme, Gram Panchayat of Parvathapur and Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy and Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghanpur in drilling a bore well in the land comprised in Sy. No. 308 of Parvathapur village allegedly belonging to her family. She prayed for a declaration that such action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. She also prays for a consequential direction to the respondents restraining them "from ever using the said bore well. " ( 2 ) THIS Court ordered notice before admission on 25-4-2000. On that day, this Court also directed the Gram Panchayat not to put the bore well sunk in Sy. No. 308 into operation by drawing water. The second respondent-Gram Panchayat filed an application being W. V. M. P. No. 1270 of 2000 praying to vacate the interim orders granted on 25-4-2000. When this application was taken up for consideration, both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents requested that the matter be finally heard and disposed of at the interlocutory stage. Accordingly, the matter is being disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel. ( 3 ) THE petitioner alleges that her family owns considerable extent of lands in the village. Her two sons are employed in the USA. The land in Sy. No. 308 admeasuring Ac. 2. 00 stands in the name of one of her sons, Sri V. Karunakar Reddy. In the said land in Sy. No. 308 there are two agricultural bore wells in existence for a long time and about a decade ago she has further sunk two "in-well bores" to an extent of 150 feet deep. By using the water from the two existing wells she has raised mango garden in an extent of Ac. 12. 00 in Sy. No. 276/a2e, which land stands in the name of other family members. Apart from this mango field, the water from the wells is also being used to irrigate another extent of Ac. 9. 00 adjacent to Sy. No. 276/a2e for the purpose of raising paddy. The two existing wells consisting two in-wells are the only source of irrigation for their lands. Apart from this mango field, the water from the wells is also being used to irrigate another extent of Ac. 9. 00 adjacent to Sy. No. 276/a2e for the purpose of raising paddy. The two existing wells consisting two in-wells are the only source of irrigation for their lands. ( 4 ) THE affidavit averments further reveal that the petitioner permitted the Department of Roads and Buildings, Government of Andhra Pradesh to lay a road from Ghanpur to Parvathapur village through the land in Sy. No. 308 without claiming any compensation. The water supply scheme of the village consists of three bore wells. When one of the bore wells dried up, the Department of Geology identified four points for sinking a new bore well. Three such points are allegedly situated in the patta land of the petitioner in Sy. No. 308 at a distance of 7 feet from the road margin and within a distance of 15 feet from the two existing wells with in-wells belonging to the petitioner s family. She also states that one of the four points is at a distance of 50 meters in the Government land away from one of the existing bore wells of the water supply scheme. After coming to know of the proposal of the Geology Department, the petitioner approached the Joint Collector, Mahbubnagar District who allegedly issued a memo dated 15-3-2000 directing the first respondent to stop drilling the bore well in the petitioner s land. Later, the petitioner came to know that the third respondent issued a memo in Rc. No. D/419/2000, dated 11-4-2000 directing the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer to take immediate steps for drilling the bore well at the points identified by the Geology Department. On 14-4-2000, the Sarpanch of Parvathapur village and other officials started the work of digging bore wells at the points selected by the Geology Department. The petitioner objected to the same and in spite of her protest the respondents completed the work of drilling bore well in a high-handed, illegal and arbitrary manner. The respondents have not acquired the land nor taken permission from the petitioner s family. The petitioner objected to the same and in spite of her protest the respondents completed the work of drilling bore well in a high-handed, illegal and arbitrary manner. The respondents have not acquired the land nor taken permission from the petitioner s family. As the bore well is sunk within a distance of 15 feet from the existing wells of the petitioner s-lands, there is a likelihood of the wells situated in the petitioner s land getting dried up as the new bore well is dug to a depth of 300 feet. The petitioner also states that the Department of Geology identified bore well points on the Government land at a distance of 50 meters away from the existing bore wells of water supply scheme and there is no reason as to why the respondents cannot sink bore wells at that point and save the wells of her family. She also states that the point in the Government land is nearer to the water supply scheme than the place where the new bore well has been sunk and this involves expenditure for laying pipeline to a distance of about 1 km. The action of the respondents in sinking the bore well without acquiring the land or without taking permission from the petitioner is violative of Arts. 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) THE Sarpanch of the village filed a counter-affidavit in support of the application for vacating the interim direction. He states that when the bore well of the Gram Panchayat dried up; it dug a bore well as per the orders of the third respondent dated 11-4-2000. The Gram Panchayat dug two bore wells near the existing bore wells, but there was no water and, therefore, they obtained orders of the higher authorities and dug bore wells on the road margin of the road leading from Ghanpur to Parvathapur which is of 32 feet width and laid in 1985. To an extent of 12 feet, the road is covered by bitumen and the disputed bore well was dug within 8 feet distance from the black topped portion. The distance between the wells of the petitioner and the new bore wells is 150 feet. To an extent of 12 feet, the road is covered by bitumen and the disputed bore well was dug within 8 feet distance from the black topped portion. The distance between the wells of the petitioner and the new bore wells is 150 feet. The Gram Panchayat is not aware of the memo dated 15-3-2000 allegedly issued by the Joint Collector and it is not aware whether the road from Ghanpur to Parvathapur forms part of Sy. No. 308 and whether the land belongs to the petitioner or not. There is a scarcity of drinking water in the village and, therefore, the Gram Panchayat took action to dig a new bore well on the road margin and ever since the bore well is dug the water is being drawn for drinking purposes with effect from 13-4-2000 and the petitioner approached this Court suppressing the above facts and obtained interim orders. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy submits that the action of the respondents in digging bore well in the petitioner s land is grossly arbitrary, illegal and the same is violative of Art. 300-A of the Constitution. Secondly, he contends that digging a bore well within a distance of 50 meters from the irrigation wells is unreasonable and the same cannot be sustained. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the provisions of A. P. Ground Water (Regulation for Drinking Water Purposes) Act, 1996 ( the Act for brevity) and submits that applying the principles adumbrated in the various provisions of the Act, digging a bore well within a distance of 200 meters is not permissible. As the second respondent has dug a bore well within a distance of 50 meters from the petitioner s-land, the use of the new bore well should be restrained. ( 7 ) SRI P. Raghavendra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that the new bore well was dug on the road margin and that in the absence of any documentary evidence produced before this Court, it cannot be held that the petitioner s family members are absolute owners of the land in Sy. No. 308 and especially the point where the new bore well is dug is with the permission of the Revenue Divisional Officer. No. 308 and especially the point where the new bore well is dug is with the permission of the Revenue Divisional Officer. ( 8 ) THE point that arises for consideration is whether the second respondent-Gram Panchayat has not acted arbitrarily and illegally and whether the respondents be restrained from using the bore well dug allegedly on the road margin. ( 9 ) THE petitioner admittedly is not the owner of the land comprised in Sy. No. 308 admeasuring Ac. 2. 00 and the land belongs to her son, Sri Karunakar Reddy who is admittedly staying in the USA. Her contention is that from the two existing wells in Sy. No. 308 she is irrigating an extent of Ac. 21. 00 of land and if the new bore well dug by the respondents is allowed to be operated, there will be depletion of water in the wells allegedly belonging to her family. The learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat disputes the contention of the petitioner that the land where the new bore well has been dug belongs to the petitioner. Indeed, the petitioner has not placed any material before this Court to countenance the argument that the land in Sy. No. 308 or in Sy. No. 276/a2e belongs to her family and in the absence of any documentary proof especially when the contention is disputed, it is not possible for this Court to record any finding that the land belongs to the petitioner or her son or her family. ( 10 ) THE next aspect in the matter is whether the action of the respondents in digging the bore well allegedly at a distance of 50 meters from the bore well of the petitioner is justified or not. Again this is disputed. The Sarpanch states that the new bore well is dug on the road margin at a distance of 8 feet from the black topped portion of the road from Ghanpur to Parvathapur and he categorically denied that the new bore well is at a distance of 50 meters from the petitioner s bore wells. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 11 ) THE Act was enacted to regulate the exploitation of ground water for protection of public drinking water sources. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 11 ) THE Act was enacted to regulate the exploitation of ground water for protection of public drinking water sources. Section 3 of the Act lays down that no person shall sink any well for any purpose in the vicinity of a public drinking water source within a distance of 200 meters if it is a source with any pump or open well, and within a distance of 250 meters if the source is used with a power driven pump. "public Drinking Water Source" is defined in S. 2 (8) as to mean a well from which the Government or a local authority provides water to the public and includes a well or any other drinking water source. Sub-section (2) of S. 3 of the Act requires permission from the District Collector or authorised officer for sinking a well for the purpose of irrigation or drinking within a distance of 200 meters or within a distance of 500 meters of a public drinking water source. Section 6 of the Act empowers the District Collector to prohibit the extraction of water from any existing well found adversely affecting any public drinking water source after making an order for payment of compensation in accordance with S. 8 of the Act. Section 10 provides for appeal to the District Collector against any order passed by the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Act. ( 12 ) A reading of the provisions of the Act shows that the District Collector and respondents 3 and 4 have power to sink a bore well for the purpose of public drinking water source. In furtherance of such object, if any one prohibits the petitioner or her family members from using their wells, the requirement is only giving an opportunity and paying compensation. Therefore, though this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel that sinking a bore well nearer to the wells of the petitioner s family is unreasonable, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel that the respondents are under obligation to pay compensation in accordance with law. Therefore, though this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel that sinking a bore well nearer to the wells of the petitioner s family is unreasonable, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel that the respondents are under obligation to pay compensation in accordance with law. In these proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution, in the absence of any documentary evidence, it is not possible to record any finding that the petitioner has right or title to the land in Sy. No. 308 or in the wells allegedly situated in the said land. These are matters which require proper enquiry by the District Collector. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to give opportunity to the petitioner to approach the District Collector, Mahbubnagar and make a representation. On such representation being made within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the District Collector shall cause an enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner and take appropriate necessary action in accordance with the provisions of A. P. Ground Water (Regulation for Drinking Water Purposes) Act, 1996 within a period of eight weeks after receiving representation from the petitioner. By the time the writ petition was filed, the respondents completed sinking of bore well and according to the Gram Panchayat they are already using the bore well for the purpose of drinking water supply to the village from 13-4-2000. Any order restraining the respondents from using the new bore well would result in hardship to the villagers. Therefore, I am not inclined to pass any orders. The interim order dated 25-4-2000 shall stand vacated. ( 14 ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Order accordingly.