Disposed

S. Kishore v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Nov 2024WP/26588/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an editor and environment activist regarding the illegal commercial extraction of groundwater. The Court found merit in the grievance and directed the relevant respondents to act on the petitioner's representation within two weeks, citing the Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (WALTA Act).

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to act on the petitioner's representation dated 29.05.2024 strictly in accordance with the WALTA Act within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

S. Kishore Vs The state of Telangana — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 J

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITIO N NO:265880F 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

9, [Fh.otS,^{S/o: S. pochaiqh,Aged about} 35^years Occ. Editor^pNTD_02 R/o^prot No. 305, Hanuman swath-i praza Ntagir o,tsriin r'ral.; tift.;&";

¶9

AND

¶10

...PET|TIONER

¶11

The state of Telanoana, Rep by lts Prirrciple Secretary Revenue Departrnent Secretariat Buitdinfis, HvoJirOio.-^{I I. ivirivvv!}

¶12

The District collector, Ranga Reddy, Ranga Reddy District

¶13

The Revenue Divisional officer, Rajendra Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District

¶14

The Tahasirdar office,.Represented by its Tahasirdar Gandipet Manda[ Gandipet Ranga Reddy district

¶15

The District Ground water Deveropment, Ranga Reddy, Ranga Reddy District

¶16

..,RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to issue a command or order or writ, considering the tardiness/ inaction, on the Part of respondent No.2 to 5, in acting on petitioners representation dated 2Bl05/ 2024, otfendino walta law and in contravention .of walta law of 2002, consequentially direct the respondent No.2 to 5, tO act on petitioners representation daled 28lOSl 2024, in accordance of walta law.

¶18

¶19

IA NO ;1 0F 2024

¶20

Petition under^{section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto seize} the Vehicle that^{is AP 29 TA 706B, 2. AP2B TA 1714, 3' AP 28 W6366'4'} TS12Uc7146,5.r512]c7146,6.TS12UE43797.AP23w7B48andalsowater bore wells erected^{in surveyNo. 65, 62, 129, in Vattingulapalle Village,Gandipet} Mandal; Rajendera^{Nagar Division, Ranga ReddyDistrict'}

¶21

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI M RATHAN SINGH}

¶22

Counsel forthe^{Respondent Nos.1to 4: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.5: GP FOR IRRIGATION}

¶24

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶25

I ',/:

¶26

(

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHAST(AR REDDY

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.26588 ot2024

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not considering the petitioner's representation dated 29.0s.2024 as illegal, arbitrarJz and violative of the provisions of the Telangana Water, Land And Trees Act, 2OO2 (for short^..the WALTA Act,,) and for other appropriate reliefs.

¶31

It is stated that the petitioner is a Journalist by profession and he is also interested in environmentar protection. The case of the petitioner is that he made a representation dated 28.05.2024 on the file of respondent No.2 stating that some persons, in collusion with the personnel working in the water works department, are trying to sell ald transport the agricultural borewell water through private water tankers for commercial purposes illegally. It is the further case of the petitioner that in response to the said representation, a joint inspection was conducted ;rnd a report has a-lso been submitted, wherein it is stated that as per the revenue recoids,

¶32

¶33

the subject lalds are not converted to non_agricultural purpose lands but the borewells therein have got commercial connections and therefore, the act of illegal extraction of groundwater for any purposes comes under contravention of the provisions of the WALTA Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the same, no action has been taken by respondent Nos.2 to 5 against the persons indulged in such illegal activities.

¶34

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶35

Since this Court finds merit in the grievance expressed by the petitioner that in view of illegal extraction of agricultural groundwater for any other purposes would cause inconvenience to the agricultural land owners of the locality, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to take appropriate action on the representation dated 2a.O5.2O24 submitted by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the WALTA Act, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

¶37

(

¶38

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany,}

¶39

pending shall stand closed. There shall be^{no orderas to costs.}

¶40

SD/.A,V.S.^PRASAD ASSI T REGISTRAR \

To,

//TRUE^COPY//

FFICER -"

,, ittfsnrrsffii*'dffi"#"--,il":"^:J o. ?Lti"ln""'ldar^{The Tahasildaroffice' Gandipet Mandal' GandipetRanga}

¶45

5 6 one CC to^{Sri M. Rathan} 7. P#'d,3Ji"f 3[undwate,rs;;f; Two CCs to^{GPfor Reve} l,nu*Hdr.tjll;:il::::-'Hyderabad [OUTj

¶46

B. Two CC to^{TheGP for lrrigation' High Courtfor the State of Telangana' at} HyderabadlOUTl

¶47

1. Two CD^CoPies

¶48

TJ BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:28 t11t2024

ORDER

o ({ 1HE ST4 14.
(
o
2 { JAl' 2025
t.
t
r)r.^ ''i\Tt'2"

¶54

WP.No.26588 of 2024

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶56

WTHOUT COSTS

¶57

@"W

S. Kishore v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Kishore v. The state of Telangana

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

Kongari Sathaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Gyaneshwar Goud Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by its Secretary to revenue

P. Dass Goud Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to

Mohammad Adbul Sather Vs State of Telangana

Srikanth Setti Vs State of Telangana

Mohd Saleem Uddin Vs The State of Telangana