Dismissed

Palyam.Murali v. The Tahsildar

Telangana HC25 Jul 2012WP/22536/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the seizure of his bore-well by the Tahsildar without a final order. Holding the notice was issued under the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act and procedural lapse existed, the court directed alternative day water use and return of the pump set.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to use bore well on alternative days for irrigation; prohibition of water withdrawal to other lands via pipeline; return of pump set to petitioner.

Palyam.Murali Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22536 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring Acs.5.00 in Survey No.405/3 of Nayamaddala Village, Chennekothapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. He states that a bore well was dug in that land in the year 2007 to irrigate the same. The Tahsildar, Chennekothapalli Mandal, respondent No.1 herein, issued notice, dated 13.07.2012, stating that the owner of neighbouring land in Survey No.402/1, by name Smt.C.Chandramma, complained that the petitioner dug a bore well recently without any permission and on account of the same, the water level in her bore well has depleted. The petitioner was required to submit explanation. It is stated that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.07.2012. His grievance is that without passing any final order on the notice, respondent No.1 seized the bore-well under a panchanama on 18.06.2012. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶6

Though the notice, dated 13.07.2012, does not refer to any provision of law, it appears to have been issued under the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act. Respondent No.1 is conferred with the power to deal with the matters. The petitioner has already submitted his explanation stating that the bore well was in existence from the year 2007 itself. Respondent No.1 was

¶7

expected to hear the petitioner and the complainant and pass final orders. The question of seizing the bore well would have arisen if only a final order was passed. The petitioner asserts that no final order was passed.

¶8

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to use bore well on every alternative day for irrigating the land in Survey No.405/3 of Nayamaddala Village, Chennekothapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. He shall not be entitled to take water from the bore well to any other land through pipeline. Respondent No.1 shall return the pump set.

¶9

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also shall stand disposed of.

¶10

_____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:25.07.2012

¶11

kdl

Palyam.Murali v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palyam.Murali v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Narayanaswamy, S/o. Pedda Venkatesu Vs The District Collector

M. Anjaneyulu Vs Govt. of A.P.

S.S. N.Panthulu Vs The District Collector

Jada Bharathamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mounika Sahu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri B.C. Janardharn Reddy, Vs The District Collector