Disposed

K.Somanarsaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by the District

Telangana HC7 Oct 2010WP/14022/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged inaction regarding a bore well digged within prohibited distance. The Court disposed of the petition, directing respondents to take closure action after affording the digger an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to grant representation opportunity to 5th respondent within six weeks and thereafter take action to close the bore well under WALTA Act Section 15(1).

K.Somanarsaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by the District — Telangana HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 14022 OF 2010

¶3

Dated: 07.10.2010

¶4

Between: K.Somanarsaiah ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following :

¶5

.....RESPONDENTS

¶6

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14022 OF 2010

¶7

ORDER :

¶8

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 in taking appropriate action under Section 15 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the WALTA Act’) for closure of the bore well dug by the 4^th respondent in survey No.428 situated at Kanchanpalli Village, Raghnathpalli Mandal, Warangal District, is arbitrary and illegal.

¶9

The petitioner, who claims to be an agriculturist, states that he has been using a well in his land in survey No.421 of Kanchanpalli Village, Raghnathpalli Mandal, Warangal District. It is alleged that the 5^th respondent, who is the adjacent owner, had dug a bore well within 80 meters of the well of the petitioner in contravention of the provisions of the WALTA Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a complaint before the 3^rd respondent on 28.03.2010 requesting to take appropriate action as contemplated under Section 15 of the WALTA Act for closure of the bore well dug by the 5^th respondent. However, the respondents 1 to 3 failed to take any action. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶10

On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 a counter affidavit has been filed stating that the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer had inspected the bore well in question on 25.11.2009 and submitted a report stating that the 5^th respondent had dug a bore well within a distance of 240 feets/80 meters. It is also stated that the Deputy Director, Ground Water Department addressed a letter to the 2^nd respondent on 20.03.2010 informing that the 5^th respondent had not taken permission from the Mandal authority before digging the bore well

¶11

and requesting to take appropriate action under Section 15 (1) of the WALTA Act.

¶12

Having regard to the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to take the necessary action in accordance with law pursuant to the report submitted by the 5^th respondent. It is made clear that before taking any such action, an opportunity should be given to the 5^th respondent to make his representation against the action proposed. Such exercise shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.

¶13

___________ Date: 07.10.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd

K.Somanarsaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by the District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Somanarsaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by the District

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

M.Jaya Satyawathi Devi Vs Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devastanam

Maganti Chandramma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

E.Sridhar Vs Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, represented by its

C. Savithri Devi, Vs The District Panchayat Officer

Alla Gruhalakshmi Vs The Commissioner of Appeals

Singamsetti Surya Chandra Rao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh