Allowed

A.Raja Reddy, v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Telangana HC6 Apr 2005WP/7551/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the Panchayat Secretary's proceedings to stop deepening a bore well. The court held the Panchayat Secretary lacked jurisdiction under the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, and set aside the proceedings, allowing the competent authority to initiate fresh ones.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 31-03-2005 are set aside.

A.Raja Reddy, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 7551 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

A.Raja Reddy, S/o.A.Narasimha Reddy R/o.Pacharlamakulpalli H/o.Buragamanda Village Sadum Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Mandal Revenue Officer Sadum Mandal, Chitoor District.

¶12

2 The Panchayat Secretary Buragamanda Village

¶13

Sadum Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dt.31.3.2005 as illegal, violative of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and contrary to he provisions of the A.P.Water, Land and Trees Act 2002 and consequently set aside the same.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV.

¶17

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated

¶20

31-03-2005 passed by the second respondent-Panchayat Secretary under the provisions of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, (for short ‘the Act’) directing the petitioner to stop deepening of bore well in Sy.No.401/7 of Buragamanda Village, Sadum Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶21

It is primarily contended by the petitioner that under the provisions of the Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer alone is competent authority to initiate the proceedings on the ground of alleged violation of the provisions of the Act and thus the impugned proceedings issued by the Panchayat Secretary is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention placed reliance in ELLATURU SIDDAIAH v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER¹

¶22

Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondent does not dispute the legal position. Thus, in the light of the provisions of the Act, it is clear that the second respondent-Panchayat Secretary is not competent authority to issue the impugned proceedings.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. However, it is made clear that this shall not preclude the competent authority to initiate proceedings afresh following due process of law.

¶24

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

¶25

G. ROHINI, J

¶26

Dated: 06-04-2005

¶27

Note: Issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs. B/o. LSK

¶28

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶29

¶30

1 The Mandal Revenue Officer Sadum Mandal, Chitoor District.

¶31

2 The Panchayat Secretary Buragamanda Village

¶32

Sadum Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶33

3 Two C.Cs. to the G.P. for Panchayat Raj, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶34

4 Two C.D. copies.

A.Raja Reddy, v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Raja Reddy, v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Mubarak Industries, Vs The District Collector (Panchayat Wing)

K. Sudarshan Reddy Vs The Authorised Officer and Divisional Forest Officer

S.v.High School, Kanagudur, Kadapa District rep., by Vs State of a.P., rep., by its Secretary to Govt.Education

Rama Educational Society, rep by Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by

Mandapapu Venkata Subbamma W/o Venkata Subbaiah Vs The District Collector, Prakasam District

Smt. Kamala Devi, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer