IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.22745 of 2014 BETWEEN Boya Sanna Lakshmakka.
AND ... PETITIONER Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. N. ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner is apprehensive of seizure of her bore well from her land in Sy.No.230-1B2 admeasuring Ac.5.57 cents in Obuganipalli Village, Kambaduru Mandal, Anantapur District. A notice bearing No.64/2014 dated 02.07.2014 was issued to the petitioner by the third respondent alleging violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) and calling upon her to produce requisite permits and documents in connection with the bore well. Petitioner submits that she filed a detailed explanation on 08.07.2014 and a copy of the same is produced wherein her contention appears to be that the bore well existed in the land before her purchase on 03.04.2001. It is stated by the petitioner that no orders are passed after submitting the explanation. However, the third respondent is likely to seize the bore well even before passing any order.
3. Having given a notice to the petitioner and having invited explanation from her, I am not prepared to accept that the third respondent would act in a manner contrary to Section 15 of the Act and seize the bore well of the petitioner, as apprehended by the petitioner. Since the petitioner had filed an explanation, as referred to above, I deem it appropriate to direct the third respondent to consider the said explanation of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and till then, the third respondent shall not take any precipitative action including seizure of bore well of the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 8, 2014 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 12.08.2014. (B/o)DSK