Gangineni Thulasi Naidu Vs the State of Ap

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not removing the submersible motor in petitioner's bore well at Sy.No 30-1 of Mallepalli Village

¶17

::2::

¶18

fields, Mudigubba Mandal is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of the fundamental rights and Consequently direct the respondents to remove the submersible motor

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.VENKAT REDDY KODUMURY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶22

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶23

2.VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM

¶24

PANCHAYAT

¶25

::3::

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19275 of 2019

¶27

This Court made the following

¶28

ORDER :

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Respondents and perused the material placed on record.

¶30

2. The case of the petitioner is that the 5^th respondent – Gram Panchayat herein erected submersible motor to the petitioner’s bore-well situated in Sy.No.30-1, Basireddypalli Village, Mallepalli Mandal for drawing the water to cater the drinking water needs of people of the village. At request of the Gam Panchayat as well as other elders of the village and due to public need, the petitioner agreed for erection of submersible motor to the petitioner’s bore-well to draw and cater the drinking water needs of the village people. After lapse of 4 years period the 5^th respondent – Gram Panchayat drawing the water from somewhere else other than the petitioner’s bore-well, while so, but not removed the submersible motor fixed to the bore-well of the petitioner even though the petitioner requested for removal of the same. For which learned counsel for the petitioner got issued

¶31

::4::

¶32

legal notice dated 17.10.2019 wherein it is requested for removal of the submersible motor of the 5^th respondent and further informed that the petitioner wants to fix up his own motor for cultivating his fields. Even after receipt of legal notice as stated above, the respondents neither acted upon nor considered the same for removal of submersible motor. Hence the writ petition.

¶33

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for 5^th respondent – Gram Panchayat furnished written instructions submitted by the 5^th respondent, wherein it is stated that the Gram Panchayat installed its own bore-well in another place and drawing the drinking water to cater the drinking water needs of the village / public since four years and 5^th respondent is not utilizing or drawing the water from the subject bore-well of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner herein is at liberty to remove the motor erected to his bore-well.

¶34

4. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents, this Court is of the considered view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to remove the subject submersible motor erected to the petitioner’s bore-well as

¶35

::5::

¶36

permission is granted by the 5^th respondent vide written instructions dated 21.08.2025.

¶37

5. In view of the facts as mentioned above, the petitioner is entitled for removal of the submersible motor of the 5^th respondent and proceed further to make use of the bore-well as per his wish and will.

¶38

6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶39

Consequently, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶40

_______________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶41

21.08.2025 krk

¶42

::6::

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA