Allowed

Maramreddy Kondaiah S/o Bakkaiah v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, P.C. Palli

Telangana HC8 Oct 2004WP/18385/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Mandal Revenue Officer's interference with the petitioner's access to a bore well. The court held that such interference without following due procedure was illegal and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of, declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with the petitioner's enjoyment of the bore well as illegal and unconstitutional.

Maramreddy Kondaiah S/o Bakkaiah Vs The Mandal Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 18385 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Maramreddy Kondaiah S/o Bakkaiah Thurakapally Village, P.C. Palli Mandal, Prakasam District

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Mandal Revenue Officer, P.C. Palli Mandal, P.C. Palli, Prakasam District

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with the enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of his agricultural bore well situated in Sy. NO. 463/5 over an extent Ac. 3-44 cents of Thurakapalli Village, P.C. Palli Mandal, Prakasam District, without any authority of law or without following any due procedure contemplated under the law as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent not to interfere with the enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the above said bore well, except by due process of law.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

The present writ petition is filed alleging that the respondent herein is not allowing the petitioner to draw water from the bore well dug by him in the year 1999. If that were the case, respondent, without following the due procedure contemplated under Section 9 of the Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) and necessary notification issued in this regard, cannot interfere with drawing of water from the bore well dug by the petitioner.

¶19

The Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶20

¶21

GOPAL REDDY, J

¶22

October 8, 2004 MRR

¶23

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

To:

1. The Mandal Revenue Officer, P.C. Palli Mandal, P.C. Palli, Prakasam District.

¶28

2. Two C.C. s to the G.P. for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

¶29

(OUT)

¶30

3. Two C.D. Copies.

Maramreddy Kondaiah S/o Bakkaiah v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, P.C. Palli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maramreddy Kondaiah S/o Bakkaiah v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, P.C. Palli

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

Potluri Srinivas Vs The Designated Authority Cum Mandal Revenue Officer

Parimi Venkata Krishna Rao , Pedda Venkata Rao Vs The Agent to the Government, West Godavari

Paleti Hanumantha Rao, Vs The District Collector

Vishnu Dutt, Vs Government of A.P.

Smt. K.Varjula Damayanthi, Vs The Commissioner Alwal

M. Vijay Singh, Vs Additional Municipal Commissioner