Vallemchetla Krishnaiah, S/0. Late Hanumaiah, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC27 Dec 2023WP/29133/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a writ petition filed to compel closure of an illegal bore-well and stop power connection. The petitioner, relying on a prior Division Bench order, alleged inaction by revenue and local authorities. The Single Judge disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to implement the earlier notice within two months with a hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vallemchetla Krishnaiah, S/0. Late Hanumaiah, Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 29'133 OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vallemchetla Krishnaiah, S/0. Late Hanumaiah, Aged about 65^years Occ Agriculture, R/o. Penchlkaladina Village, Neredcherla Mandal, Suryapet District, TS.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep- by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶13

The District Collector, Suryapet District, Suryapet Town, and District, TS.

¶14

The Tasildhar, Neredcherla Town & Mandal, Suryapet, District, TS.

¶15

The Assistant Engineer (Operation), TSSPDCL, Neredcherla, Town and Mandal, Suryapet District, TS.

¶16

The Divisional Engineer (Operation), TSSPDCL, Huzurnagar, Town and Mandal, Suryapet District, TS.

¶17

Rachuri Nageswar Rao @ Nagesh, S/o. Late Lachaiah, Occ NSP Laskar, R/o. Penchikaladina Village, Neredcherla Mandal, Suryapet District, TS.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the in action of the respondent authorities, particularly 2nd and 3rd respondents herein, not chosen to take any steps in-respect of close down the illegal bore-well of the 6th^unofficial respondent, situated in Sy.No- 29, 32, approximately Acc. 2.00, Penchikaladina Village, Neredcherla Mandal, Suryapet District, TS, and not chosen to implemen{ing the WLTA Act,2002, and same has been as been illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and violation of WLTA Act. 2002, and Consequently direct the^2nd and 3rd respondents herein, forthwith closedown the illegal bore-well of^{the 6th} unofficial respondent herein, by implementing the notice No- 8.1797812017,^dl-

¶20

08 oe.2017, issued by the 3rd respondent herein, and further direct to the 4th respondent and 5th respondent herein, not to give or sanction any power conn€lction to the illegal bore well of the 6th unofficial respondent, situated in SyNo- 29,32, Penchikaradina Viflage, Neredcherra Mandar, suryapet District, TS,

¶21

l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WPMP . NO: 36262 OF 20171

¶22

Petition under section 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the' affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 4th & sth respondents herein, not to give or sanction any power connection to the illegal bore well of the 6th unofficial respondent, situated in sy N.: 29, 32, Penchikaradina Viilage, Neredcherra Mandar, suryapet District, TS" pending disposal of the main Writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PALLE NAGESWAR RAO

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1to3: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&S: SRI p.VlNOD REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the.Respondent No.6: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY

¶27

The C;ourt made the following: ORDER

¶28

¶29

HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE J. SREENTVASRAO} WRIT PETITIO^{N No.29L33 of 2Ol7}

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This writ petition is Iiled^{seekingthe following relief:-}

¶32

'to issue a^{turttorder or directionmore partiqiarlAone in} tle nature oJ Loit^{oJ mandamus,declaing the in acdonof the} respondent authoities^{parlicularly 2"d and 3drespondents} lerein tl/)t closen to take^{angstepsin respectof cLosedown} tle itlegal bore-well of^{the 6unoffici.alrespondenl situdted in} Sg.No.29, 32 approimatelg^{Ac-2OO PenchikaladinaVillage,} Neredcherla Mandat, Suryapet^{Distict,TS, qnd not chosen to} implementing tle^{WLTA Act, 2OO2and samehas beenillegaL'} arbitrary, uniust and uiolation^{ofWLTA Act'2OO2and} Consequentlg direct^{the 2"d and 3'd respondentsherein} fotthwith^{closedountlei\egatbore-wellof tLe 6h unofficia|} respondent herein^bg implementing the notice No.B/7978/2017, dt.O8.08.2017^{issued bg tl@ 3'd respondent} herein and futther direct^{tothe 4th respondentand 5h} respondent hErein^{notto gtve or sanction ang power connection} to the itlegdl bore well of^{the 6h urrtfficialrespondentsituated} in Sg.No.29, 32 Penchikaladina^{Village,NeredcherlaMandal,} Sury apet Distrirt,^{T. S. "}

¶33

Heard Sri P.Nageswar^{Rao, learnedcounsel for the} petitioner, leamed Assistant^{Government Pieader for Revenue} appearing on behalf of^{respondentNos. I to 3,} Sri P'Vinod Reddy, learned counsel^{for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Sri} S.Rahul Reddy, learned^{counsellor respondent No'6'}

¶34

e Learned counsel for^{the petitioner submits that} respondent^{No.3 is not taking} "1I_=,1."^{pursuant to the}

¶35

¶36

notice dated 08.08.2017,^{without arry validreasons}

¶37

Sri S.Rahul Reddy,^{learned counsel appearing for} respondent No.6 submits^{that prior to the present Writ} Petition, respondent No.6^{filed Writ Petition i.e., W'P'No 27613} of 2Ol7 , queslioning^{tJ.e very same notice datedO8'O8'2017} issued by respondent^{No.3. Aggrieved by the order passed by} the learned Single Judge^{inW.P.No.27613of 2Ol7 on} 2l.Oa.2ol7, respondent^{No.6 hled WritAppeal i'e',} W.A.No.1258 ot 2017. The^{Division Benchof this Court} disposed of W.A.No.1258^{of 2OL7as well as W P'No'27613of} 2017. The operative^{portionof the said order reads as follows:}

¶38

" In case a replg is fited b^{the sllot!cause notice within the} aforesaid peiod of ten doys,^{tle gd respondent shall cotsider} tlle objection-s raised in tlz^{replg to the show cause notice,and} poss a reosoned order in acardance with^{laudealingwith aII} the contentiorls put forth bg^{the appellants-wit} Petitionersⁱⁿ ttleir replV b fie shotu^{cause notice; and. communicatethe same} to enable ttle appellants-unit^{petitioners,if theg are aggrieued} thereby, to cha.ttenge lle^{validttgof stch an orderin apProPriate} legal proceedings. The^{gd respondentshall nottake ang coercive} action dgainst the aPPetlants'turit^petitioners for^{a peiodof one} uteek after seruice of a^copy of^{tte order on the appellants-tDit} petitioners- Needless to state^{ttnt, if theaPpellants-orit} petitioners' complaint o.goiinst tlle^{4h respondeftt,oflnving} iltegally dttg four boreuells,^is found^{to haue some meit, ang} actton" which tle 3d^{respondent mag take againsttLLe4th} respond.ent, shall onty be afier^{the 4^ respondentis puton} notice, and is giuen an oPportunitg^{is being teard.}

¶39

Both *Le Wit APpeal and^{the Writ Petitton are disposedof} accordinglg."

¶40

lrarned counsel for^{the petitionersubmits that despite}

¶41

specific direction^{given by the Division Bench,respondents}

¶42

¶43

¶44

have not taken any steps^{to pass orderspursuant to the notice} dated 08.08.2017

¶45

Having considered the submissions^{made by the} respective parties, without^{going into the merits of the case,} this Court deems it appropriate^{to dispose of the Writ Petition} directing respondents to^{take appropriate steps, pursuantto} the notice dated 08.O8.2017 ,^{by dulytakinginto consideration} of the orders passed by^{the Division Bench in W.A.No.1258 of} 2Ol7 within a period of two^{(2) months from the date of receipt} of a copy of this order, after^{giving opportunity to the petitioner} and to the unoflicial resPondent.

¶46

7 . With the above direction, the^{Writ Petition is disposed} of accordingly. No costs.

¶47

Miscellaneous petitions^pending, if^{any, shall stand}

¶48

closed. SD/-T.^JAYASREE ASSISTANT qGIS R

¶49

//TRUE^COPY// SECTIO OFFICER

¶50

To,

¶51

The Principal^{Secretary, RevenueDepartment'S€crelariatHvderabad' T S} 2. The District^{Collector, s,r-v"GiSittn6t'SuryapetTown'and District' TS'} TS 3. The Tasildhar,^{Neredcherla ffi;'e' M;tq{ Suryapet'} -District' 4. rte Assistant^{Ensineer (uPtiLiilil"is#6cufuei'eocherla'Townand}

¶52

5 Yrutsi},.,y"tt""L?st:i"l#,,til'rssPDCL,Huzurnasar'rownand 6 W:t3:,y&"laF'fluttu.^{,Hish courtror the Stateor retansana, at} HI*8t?S Lo#-tor,-.^{N AGE swAR RAo, Ad.:T,a,t:,[o P u c ]}

¶53

7II Bffi BB^{B SEi 3 Hr&f':f#1ffi::.tibTua-}

1C . Two^{CD CoPies}

BM BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:271'1212023

ORDER

{ \re STA re
(
a
J
o
1 2 JAll 202[
o
t r,t1
O5gnr":l'i

¶60

WP.No.29133 o12017

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

r^
t))
l-/
sir *

Vallemchetla Krishnaiah, S/0. Late Hanumaiah, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vallemchetla Krishnaiah, S/0. Late Hanumaiah, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badiga Potharaju, Vs The joint Collector

Ms.N.Ramakantham, and 39 Otehrs Vs the Stateof a.P., and 7 Others

S.Ravi Kumar Vs The Tahasildar, Mandal Revenue office

Smt. D. Rajeshwari Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kodoor Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Sreepada Sada Laxmi Vs The District Collector