Ch. Anji Reddy, v. The Mandal Revenue Officer
Case brief
What is this about?
SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.898…
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
WRIT PETITION No.898 of 2005
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in seizing the bore well of the petitioner situated in Sy.Nos.61/A3 and 62/E of Turkapally village, Narayankhed Mandal, Medak District, as illegal and arbitrary.
According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the agricultural lands covered by Sy.Nos.61/A3 and 62/E of Turkapally village, Narayankhed Mandal, Medak District, and got dug a bore well in the said land, to which the Electricity Board granted Service Connection No.208. The grievance of the petitioner is that on a complaint lodged by his neighbour by name Sai Reddy, his bore well was seized by the respondent without issuing any notice and without causing any enquiry. Hence, this writ petition.
Though the writ petition relates to the year 2005, the respondent has not filed the counter affidavit.
As per the provisions of A.P. Water, Land & Trees Act, 2002, the Tahsildar has no authority to seize the bore well of any individual, unless it affects the public source of water. In the case on hand, the respondent ought not to have taken such a drastic action of seizing the borewell of the petitioner on a mere complaint lodged by the neighbour of the petitioner, which is the only source of drawing water for the petitioner to irrigate his agricultural fields. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondent in seizing the bore well of the petitioner is
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/898/2005
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court