IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.3852 of 2012 BETWEEN Banoth Balu.
... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Warangal and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. KOWTURU VINAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE MR. C. RAGHU The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the third respondent.
2. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that though the objectionable bore well of the third respondent was seized by the second respondent on 22.05.2011, the third respondent had later removed the seals and used the said bore well. Petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint with the second respondent on 02.01.2012 brining to his notice that the objectionable bore well of the third respondent is being used by the third respondent by removing the seals put on 22.05.2011 and urgent action is required to be taken. Alleging that no action is taken, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The second respondent filed a counter confirming that the bore well of the third respondent was seized as per the Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 on 22.05.2011. It is also accepted that the petitioner has agricultural land in Sy.No.83 admeasuring Ac.1.03 guntas in Gundamrajpally village of Narsimhulapet Mandal. With respect to the specific allegation of removing seals by the third respondent it is staed that a case is registered against the third respondent in FIR.No.16 of 2012 on 13.02.2012 and once again the bore well was seized on 11.01.2012. The second respondnet, therefore, denied the allegation that he has not taken any action as per petitioner’s complaint, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition.
4. From the averments in the counter affidavit, it is apparent that the second respondent has taken appropriate action in accordance with law and the cause of action in the writ petition does not survive any further, as appropriate steps as per the WALTA Act has already been taken by the second respondent.
Recording the same, the writ petition is disposed of.
However, if any further cause of action arises in the matter, it is open for the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 4, 2014 DSK