Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B. Nagamani vs District Collector, Ranga Reddy ... on 5 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)ALD324, 2002(6)ALT639
ORDER V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. The petitioner is an owner of Plot No. 8 admeasuring 500 Sq. yards in S. No. 200 (Old), New No. 200/1 in Sagar Housing Complex near B.N. Reddy Nagar, Sahebnagar Kalan, Hayatnagar Mandal. He dug a borewell of 6" Diameter. He applied and was duly given power connection under Service No. 495 in the month of August, 2001. The petitioner was drawing water and supplying through tanks to Gram Panchayats of Turka Yamjal, Ramannagudem, Kammagudem and Seetha School of Nursing. When the residents of the locality requested for supply of water, the petitioner agreed subject to the residents paying the current consumption charges. They refused and approached the District Collector, 1st respondent herein. The District Collector allegedly acting on such representation sent a note to the Superintending Engineer, A.P. Transmission Corporation, Hyderabad and Municipal Commissioner, L.B. Nagar, which reads as under:
Note to SE, TRANSCO, RR District and Municipal Commissioner L.B. Nagar Kindly find enclosed herewith the representation given by the Sagar Complex Residents Association, Vanasthalipuram, wherein they have alleged that the owners of Plot Nos. 8 and 11 are selling daily 60 to 70 tankers to the private persons and industries with the result that the bores in the surrounding areas are going dried up. Earlier, the power connection was disconnected but later on again it was provided. The owner had assured that he would supply only to the Gram Panchayats but he has failed to do and is supplying to the commercial and industrial purposes.
Therefore, you are instructed to take immediate action and cut the power connection and see that the owner does not exploit the ground-water.
The Municipal Commissioner, L.B. Nagar should make alternate arrangements for supply of water to Kammaguda and other GPs.
Collector Ranga Reddy Dist.
2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Sri Ganga Rao and Sri Rajinikanth Jwala representing A.P. TRANSCO are not able to trace the power of the District Collector to any statute, Board standing order or executive instructions to pass such orders directing A.P. TRANSCO to disconnect power supply to the petitioner. Be it noted that ground-water for drinking purposes in now regulated in a limited way by an enactment of A.P. State Legislature. The A.P. Ground Water (Regulation of Drinking Water Purposes) Act, 1996 in pith and substance is a statute to regulate the exploitation of ground, water for the protection of public drinking water sources. It does not in any manner deal with the rights and liabilities in relation to water wealth in a private patta land or private ownership house site.
3. This aspect of the matter was considered by me in V. Sarojamma v. Deputy Executive Engineer, . 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 metres if it is a source with any pump or open well, and within a distance of 250 metres if the source is used with a power driven pump. "Public Drinking Water Source" is defined in Section 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 Section 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 metres 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 Section 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. In Sarojamma's case this Court after referring to the provisions of the Act above held:
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. In these proceedings under Article 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.
4. This Court further held that the District Collector has power to sink a bore-well for the purpose of public drinking water sources and also power to prohibit the extraction of water from any existing well found adversely effecting any public drinking water source. The exercise of this power is conditioned by an order for payment of compensation in accordance with Section 8. It has not been brought to my notice that there is any existing Government bore-well or bore-well intended as public drinking water source. The averment of the petitioner that there are no other bore-wells in the vicinity remains uncontroverted,
5. The leaned Counsel for the A.P. TRANSCO fairly submitted that his client acted in accordance with the directions of the District Collector and disconnected the power supply on 25-9-2001. On the holding by this Court that the letter of the District Collector dated 17-9-2001 is ex facie without power or authority, the same in law is liable to be ignored. Accordingly, power supply to the petitioner's bore-well shall be restored.
6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.