Dismissed

B. Ramalingadu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Nov 2022WP/16338/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning illegal digging of a bore well. Finding that the Tahsildar had already seized the bore well and maintained it as per common orders, the court held no further adjudication was required and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

B. Ramalingadu, Vs State of Andhra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.16338 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, particularly respondents 2 to 6, in not taking any action against the 7^th respondent from illegally digging the bore well in the land in Survey No.24 of Machapuram village, Devanakonda Mandal, Kurnool District, which is abutting the field situated in Survey No.23 and 26 of Machapuram village, Devanakonda Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal and arbitrary.”

¶6

This court, on 10.06.2015, while admitting the writ

¶7

petition, passed the interim direction as follows:

¶8

“As the petitioner has already made a complaint to the Tahsildar, Devanakonda Mandal, the 5^th respondent herein, and the said authority is entitled to take necessary action in accordance with law as per the provisions of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, there shall be a direction to the 5^th respondent to consider the petitioner’s complaint dated 28.04.2015 and take necessary appropriate action thereon after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.”

VS, J

W.P.No.16338 of 2015

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record the instructions in Rc.B.56/2018, dated 15.11.2022 of the Tahsildar, Devanakonda Mandal, wherein it is stated that the bore well which is illegally dug by the 7^th respondent herein, in Survey No.24 of Machapuram village, Devanakonda Mandal, was seized on 13.04.2018 at 4.00P.M. under the cover of Panchanama as per the common orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.15143 of 2017 and the then Tahsildar, Devanakonda issued orders vide Rc.A.104/2015 directing the Village Revenue Officer, Machavaram village, to maintain the seizure of the bore well until further orders. The action has already been taken against the unauthorised bore well dug illegally by the 7^th respondent and the seized bore well is not opened till date.

¶13

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the instructions placed on record, this court is of the considered view that nothing survives for further adjudication in the writ petition.

VS, J

W.P.No.16338 of 2015

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. There shall be

¶18

no order as to costs.

¶19

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

_______________ V. SUJATHA, J

¶21

Date: 15.11.2022 Ksn

B. Ramalingadu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Ramalingadu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Korsa Laxmi Vs The State of of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Goddu Sitamahalakshmi, Vs The Tahsildar

Ghanta Venkata Naga Malleswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kamatham Chinna Rami Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vathaluru Venkata Ramana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

Kaku Srinivasulu Reddy Vs The State of Ap.