Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 769 (AP)

K. Uday Kumar v. Mandal Revenue Officer

2003-06-19

V.V.S.RAO

body2003
V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners assail the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dt. 29. 5. 2003 whereby and whereunder the said officer took over the existing bore well of petitioners in S. No. 318 in Gadmalaiahgudem in Gungal Revenue Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on account of dire scarcity of drinking water in the said village. The petitioners claim to be owners of the land in S. No. 318 admeasuring Ac. 4. 16 guntas. They dug a bore well in August 2001 for agricultural purposes and raised mango plantation planting 475 trees. ( 2 ) THE Assistant Engineer, Rural Water Supply Scheme, Yacharam Mandal, sent a requisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer to take over the bore well of petitioners as there is depletion of ground water level resulting in water shortage in the village. Therefore, the impugned order was passed further requesting the Agricultural Officer, Yacharam Mandal to assess the value of the crop likely to be damaged due to non-availability of water on account of closure of petitioners well so that compensation can be paid to the petitioners. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, Sri B. Shiva Kumar, mainly challenges the order on three grounds. He submits that the impugned order is void being in violation of principles of natural justice. Secondly he would urge that the bore well is situated at 1. 5 Kms from the village and therefore the same would not serve any purpose for which it was taken over. Lastly he would submit that there are other number of bore wells in the village and the owners of said bore wells are using their bore wells for raising paddy crop. First respondent in a discriminatory manner ignored those bore wells and taken over petitioners bore well which is unsustainable. The submissions made are devoid of any merits and cannot be countenanced by this Court. Rule 15 of A. P. Water, Land and Trees Rules, 2002 (for short the Rules ) reads as under. 15. Taking over of well to ensure drinking water:1. The authority may by a general or special order shall authorize the Designated Officer to identify such wells as required to ensure supply of drinking water to local population and shall take over such wells;2. 15. Taking over of well to ensure drinking water:1. The authority may by a general or special order shall authorize the Designated Officer to identify such wells as required to ensure supply of drinking water to local population and shall take over such wells;2. On identification of the wells, the Designated Officer shall serve or cause to serve an order of requisition on the owner of the well specifying the period of such requisition. The Designated Officer for sufficient reasons, may extend such period of requisition. 3. On requisition, the owner of the well shall not draw water for any other purpose other than drinking for his own use4. If the well so requisitioned is the only source of irrigation and if the owner is solely dependent on agriculture for his livelihood, the owner shall be compensated for the loss of livelihood. The quantum of compensation shall be decided by the District Collector in consultation with the agriculture department based on the crops raised during the same period in the previous three years by the owner utilizing the water from the well. " ( 4 ) AS per the above Rule, the authority is competent to by a general or special order to authorize designated officer to identify a bore well required to ensure supply of drinking water to local population. The power can be exercised only when there is a shortage of drinking water to ensure regular water supply to local population. In a matter like this, when notice by legislature or delegated legislature to comply rule of natural justice is specifically excluded by principle of causus omissus Court cannot supply the same and compel the authorities to issue notice. If any authority is required for this principle, a reference may be made to Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel1. ( 5 ) SECONDLY, no factual foundation is laid before this Court in support of the submission that petitioners bore well is situated at a far off place and/or others bore wells are located near to village. Even otherwise, it is for the designated authority to whom powers are delegated as to which bore well has to be taken over to ensure regular supply of drinking water to local people. These orders by very nature are not justiciable and this Court cannot go into these matters by resorting to detailed examination. Even otherwise, it is for the designated authority to whom powers are delegated as to which bore well has to be taken over to ensure regular supply of drinking water to local people. These orders by very nature are not justiciable and this Court cannot go into these matters by resorting to detailed examination. It must be remembered that the maxim salus populi suprema lex would apply in such matter, and the Court should consider larger public interest than individual interest of petitioners whose grievance is sought to be redressed in Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, remedy under Article 226 is being discretionary, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of petitioners. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they may prefer appeal under Rule 27 of the Rules within two weeks from today. ( 6 ) WITH the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.