Dismissed

Kommineni Venkateswara Rao S/o Devendra Rao, v. The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam.

Telangana HC16 Sept 2013WP/25507/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged the interference by the Revenue authorities with their activities of cleaning and repairing existing bore wells. The court directed the respondents not to interfere with the cleaning and repairing of existing wells but allowed action if new wells were sunk without permission under the relevant Act.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to not interfere with cleaning of existing bore wells; respondents entitled to act under relevant Act if new wells are sunk without permission.

Kommineni Venkateswara Rao S/o… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

W.P.No.25507 of 2013

¶3

Date : 16-9-2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Kommineni Venkateswara Rao and another .. Petitioners Vs.

¶6

The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and others .. Respondents

¶7

Counsel for petitioners : Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Assistant Government Pleader

¶8

for Revenue

¶9

The Court made the following :

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

Petitioner No.1 claims to be the owner of Ac.8-46 cents in Sy.Nos.126 and 69/3 and petitioner No.2 claims to be the owner of Ac.8-92 cents in Sy.Nos.126, 69/2 and 69/3 of Billanapalli village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District. The petitioners pleaded that in Sy.No.69/3, there are two bore wells in existence and that they have been drawing water therefrom through electric motors by paying charges to the electricity supplier; that Palmolin garden has been raised over the lands which are being irrigated with the two bore wells and that a few months back one bore well which is connected with electricity service connection No.61442010000062 stopped yielding water as sand and mud stagnated in the down layers of the bore well. Therefore, the petitioners proposed to repair and clean both the bore wells by taking out casing pipes with the help of rotary drilling machine. As respondent No.3 has stopped the said activity, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition.

¶12

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area), on instructions, submitted that

¶13

none of the Revenue officials, including respondent No.3, has been interfering with the cleaning of the existing bore wells and that in the guise of cleaning of the existing bore wells, the petitioners have been trying to sink new bore wells without obtaining permission of respondent No.3.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the petitioners has reiterated that his clients are only cleaning the existing bore wells and that if new bore wells are proposed to be sunk, they will obtain permission from respondent No.3.

¶15

In the light of the above submissions of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms:

¶16

(i) Respondent No.3 shall not interfere with the petitioners’ activity of cleaning and repairing of the existing bore wells.

¶17

(ii) In the event the petitioners are found excavating new bore wells without permission, the respondents are entitled to initiate proceedings under the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and take appropriate action thereunder.

¶18

As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.31476/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶20

Date : 16-9-2013

¶21

Kommineni Venkateswara Rao S/o Devendra Rao, v. The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kommineni Venkateswara Rao S/o Devendra Rao, v. The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam.

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

Gorla Sailaja, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

N. Venkata Ramana Reddy. Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh.

D. Srinivas, Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Kola Narsimha Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, Vs The Government of India

Smt.Racherla Gouri Vs The Tahsildar

Khaja Faheemuddin S/o Khaja Kareemuddin, Vs The Regional passport officer