Disposed

Vadde Venkata Lakshmamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC4 Jun 2015WP/14785/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged seizure of her bore well by Tahsildar citing lack of power and procedural irregularity. Court held Tahsildar had delegated powers but denied immediate reopening, granting extension to submit explanation and directing Tahsildar to issue notice and pass fresh order after hearing both sides.

What did the court decide?

Time granted to submit explanation; Tahsildar directed to issue fresh notice and pass order after hearing both sides upon receipt of explanation.

Vadde Venkata Lakshmamma, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.P. NO. 14785 of 2015

¶3

Date of Judgment: 4.6.2015

¶4

Between:

¶5

Vadde Venkata Lakshmamma

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶11

W.P. NO. 14785 pf 2015

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard both sides.

¶14

The petitioner complains that her bore well in Sy.No. 246-2, H. Sodhanapalli revenue village, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur district was seized contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 under the proceedings of third respondentTahasildar, dated 7.5.2015. The petitioner has also, inter alia, raised a contention that the Tahsildar is not empowered to exercise the powers of seizure and it can only be done by the authority under

¶15

Section 3 of the said Act. I am unable to accept the said contention in view of Section 7 of the said Act which permits that all powers of the authority can be delegated to the district level authority or Mandal level authority. It is also noticed from the impugned order that though the petitioner was called upon to submit her explanation to the notice issued by the Tahsildar, dated 23.4.2015, she has not submitted it, consequently the Tahsildar examined the matter and passed the impugned order of seizure. Against the said order, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of appeal before the Collector. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits in the alternative that the petitioner may be given once again an opportunity of submitting her explanation to the notice dated 23.4.2015. Keeping in view the interest of justice and for fair adjudication of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions,

¶16

1. That the impugned order of seizure shall continue and shall be subject to further order to be passed by the Tahsildar in terms of direction No.3 given hereinunder;

¶17

2. That the petitioner is granted time till 22^nd June, 2015 to submit her explanation to the notice dated 23.4.2015;

¶18

3. That if such an explanation is received, the Tahsildar shall issue notice to the complainant as well as to the petitioner and pass an appropriate fresh order after hearing and considering their cases;

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶20

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

Dt. 4.6.2015

NB:

C.C. of order be furnished within three days.

¶25

/BO/ KR

Vadde Venkata Lakshmamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadde Venkata Lakshmamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Mr. Yakkala Veerambotlu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal

Dr. N. Rajesh Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. N. Rajesh Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Baditha Ravanamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary

G.Gunasekhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Joginpally Krishna Rao S/o. Venkat Rama Rao, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its