IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.13129 of 2014 BETWEEN G. Ramachandra Reddy and others.
AND ... PETITIONERS State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. N. VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard both sides.
2. Petitioners state that they were given impugned notice bearing No.B/197/2013 dated 16.02.2013 alleging that they are unauthorizedly drawing water and irrigating their patta lands from Ac.5.00 cents of temple land in Sy.No.510 situated in Chittigidda Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said notice was replied to by the petitioners under their detailed reply dated 28.02.2013.
3. It is apparent that 18 cultivators, who are petitioners herein, were given individual notices, referred to above, and though all of them have filed individual replies for all the notices, the replies are common. Petitioners, however, approached this Court by the present writ petition apprehending that the Tahsildar, respondent No.4, would direct disconnection of power supply.
4. On the last date of hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader was asked to get instructions, as no orders were passed in pursuance of the impugned notice.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that no orders have been passed in pursuance of the impugned notice and the matter is still pending consideration of the fourth respondent.
6. In the circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioners does not appear sustainable. However, the fourth respondent is directed not to take any precipitative action till he considers the replies filed by the petitioners and passes appropriate orders. It is also made clear that the fourth respondent shall issue notice to the petitioners intimating the date of hearing and after hearing them, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 28, 2014 DSK