Disposed

B. Manjula, v. The District Collector -cum- District Level Authority

Telangana HC19 Dec 2012WP/38491/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No.38491 of 2012, the court directed the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's bore-well until a final order is passed under the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, noting that no such order had yet been communicated.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities not to interfere with the bore-well without passing an order as contemplated under the provisions of the Act.

B. Manjula, Vs The District Collector -cum- District… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.38491 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

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

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2, in trying to seize the bore-well of the petitioner in Survey No.327 situated at Thimmanacherla Village, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

In this Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1-50 cents covered by Survey No.327 situated at Thimmanacherla Village, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District. Even by the time she has purchased the aforesaid land from its earlier owner by name

¶7

J. Eswaraiah, there was a bore-well existing in the aforesaid land and as such, she has not violated any of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶8

On 16.04.2012, respondent No.3, alleging that the petitioner without obtaining any permission from the competent authority and without maintaining minimum distance from his existing bore-well has dug a bore-well, filed a complaint before respondent No.2. It is stated that based on the said complaint, respondent No.2 issued notice, dated 16.04.2012, in Rc.No.646/B/2012, for which the petitioner has already filed her explanation.

¶9

In this Writ Petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that without passing any order for seizure of the bore-well, respondent No.2 is insisting for closure of the bore-well.

¶10

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that as the bore-well was dug by the petitioner without obtaining permission from the competent authority, as contemplated under the Act, the respondent authorities are taking steps for closure of the bore-well.

¶11

For effecting seizure of the bore-well, in case of violation of the provisions of the Act, the competent authority is required to pass an order and communicate the same.

¶12

A perusal of the notice, dated 16.04.2012, indicates that without obtaining prior permission, the petitioner has dug a bore-well and as such, she was called upon to explain the same, in exercise of powers under Section 15 (1) and (2) of the Act. It is stated that the petitioner has already filed explanation to the said show-cause notice.

¶13

As it is not in dispute that no final order is passed yet, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the bore-well of the petitioner, without passing any order as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. However, it is made clear that, if the petitioner has dug the bore-well in violation of the provisions of the Act, this order will not preclude the respondent authorities to take steps and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶14

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶15

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶16

December 19, 2012 MD

¶17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.38491 OF 2012

¶19

December 19, 2012

¶20

B. Manjula, v. The District Collector -cum- District Level Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Manjula, v. The District Collector -cum- District Level Authority

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

B.Maqbool Ahmed, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer

K.R.v.v.Sanyasi Chetty, Vs The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District.

Taddi Nagalakshmi Vs The Revenue Divisonal Officer

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs The Chief Secretary

G. Hariprasad, Vs The District Collector

Md. Naseem d/o Md. Khasim, Vs The Director General of Police