THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1665 of 2014 Between:
Baru Mallikarjuna Rao, DATE: 30.12.2014 R/o. Chiannapareddipalli Village, Kalavalapudi Panchayat, SPSR Nellore District.
… Appellant And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1665 of 2014 Judgment: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is admitted. Having regard to the scope of the controversy involved in this matter, we think that hearing of this appeal observing all formalities is not required.
The unofficial respondent, despite notice, did not appear before the learned trial Judge. So, we feel that no notice is required to be served upon him for hearing out of this appeal.
We have heard the learned counsels for the appellant and the State.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge, who has disposed of the writ petition, by which, the order of the Collector and District Magistrate, SPSR Nellore District, who is the appellate authority under Section 33 of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short ‘the WALTA Act’) was confirmed.
The unofficial respondent preferred a statutory appeal before the Collector, on which, the order impugned before the leaned trial Judge was passed. The Tahasildar after considering the application, granted permission to the appellant to dig a bore well. However, the unofficial respondent being a resident of that area, preferred an appeal against the said order. The appellate authority, it appears, invited the explanation of the appellant, who offered the same.
We have examined the order of the appellate authority closely and we find that the appellate authority has not passed any speaking order meaning thereby no reason nor discussions were recorded as to why the explanation offered by the appellant was not acceptable to him. Further more, the appellate authority has relied on extraneous materials, namely, the report of the Deputy Director, Ground Water Department of the ground water availability, and it was not supplied to the appellant at all.
Under the circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the order impugned before the learned trial Judge is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. We think the learned trial Judge should have taken note of the aforesaid lacuna. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned trial Judge and also the order of the appellate authority. However, we direct the appellate authority to re-hear the matter after supplying the report or any materials, which are sought to be relied on to both the parties and after hearing them, without being influenced by the impugned decision, the appellate authority, obviously will pass appropriate order in accordance with law recording reasons. The entire exercise shall be completed afresh within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The writ appeal is accordingly allowed.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 30th December, 2014 pnb