Disposed

Smt. B. Ramakrishnamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC10 Jul 2017WP/22672/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order granting liberty to the petitioner to submit an explanation regarding a non-received seizure notice within one week and directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to submit explanation within one week; respondent directed to pass orders within two weeks; seizure order kept in operation.

Smt. B. Ramakrishnamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22672 of 2017

¶3

O R D E R :

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Panchayat Raj and Revenue for the respondents.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that she is eking out her livelihood by doing cultivation of the land in an extent of Ac.4.98 cents in Sy.No.873-1 of Kondapalli Village H/ o Tumucherla, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. It is her further case that she dug a bore well in the year 2000 and was drawing water from the said bore well. While so, when the 3^rd respondent seized the bore well in the year 2014, she filed WP No.10804 of 2014 challenging the action of the 3^rd respondent. This court disposed of the said writ petition on 15.04.2014 directing the 3^rd respondent to issue notice upon her as contemplated under Section 15 of the WALTA Act and pass orders after hearing the petitioner. It appears that thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, directed the 3^rd respondent to implement the orders of this court by proceedings dated 08.05.2015. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of seizing the bore well passed by the 3^rd respondent on 16.06.2017.

¶6

A reading of the impugned order shows that when a notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.08.2015 by 3^rd respondent, the petitioner did not respond and in those circumstances, the 3^rd respondent passed order directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector to seize the bore well. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice alleged to have been sent on 21.08.2015 was not received by the petitioner. In the

¶7

¶8

circumstances, this court feels that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner is given liberty to submit her explanation pursuant to the notice alleged to have given on 21.08.2015, within one week from today and the 3^rd respondent is directed to pass appropriates orders in accordance with law, keeping in view of the orders passed by this court in WP Nos.10804 of 2014 and WP No.20369 of 2015 dated 15.04.2015 and 21.07.2015 respectively, within two weeks, thereafter. Till such time, the order of seizure passed on 16.06.2017 shall remain in operation.

¶9

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

¶10

_________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 10.07.2017 Note: Furnish CC in two days (BO) BSS

¶11

¶12

¶13

HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶14

URGENT

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.22672 of 2017

¶16

BSS

¶17

Date: 10.07.2017

Smt. B. Ramakrishnamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. B. Ramakrishnamma, 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

Nadakuditi Venkata Subba Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Barigi Srinivasulu Vs The State of Andhdra Pradesh,Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Pamarthi Naga Venkata Madhavi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh.

Smt. Mattepu Nagaratnamma w/o Subrahmanyam Vs The State of Andhra Pradedh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Devineni Anusuyamma Vs Sri K.Sambasiva Rao

Sathi Mohan Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh