IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 27276 of 2014 BETWEEN N.Ramalakshmamma AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. On the complaint by the petitioner against respondent No.4, an enquiry was made by respondent No.3 Tahsildar, under Section 15 of the Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for brevity, “WALTA”).
The Tahsildar vide proceedings in R.C.78/2014/B, dated 27.06.2014, came to the conclusion that respondent No.4 dug a bore well in Survey No.72/2 within the prohibited distance and also violated the provisions of WALTA by not taking any prior permission. However, questioning the said order of respondent No.3, respondent No.4 has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appeal has since been allowed by the appellate authority by order, dated 13.08.2014, impugned herein. The appellate authority was of the view that respondent No.3 has not visited the field and not observed the distance with regard to the bore well in question. Hence, the impugned order of the Tahsildar was set aside and the case was remitted to the Tahsildar to conduct field inspection, observe the above points, and pass appropriate fresh orders. Petitioner challenges the said appellate order on the ground that the Tahsildar had in fact mentioned the distance of 90 mts., in the order and, as such, the Collector was not justified in holding that exact distance was not noticed by the Tahsildar.
3. I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition as the order was passed after discussing and reexamining the entire matter by the appellate authority independently. One of the reasons for remitting the matter mentioned by the appellate authority is with reference to not noticing the exact distance. However, there are two other reasons mentioned by the appellate authority while remitting the matter for fresh consideration that the said order cannot be said to cause any prejudice to the petitioner as the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 would be heard afresh when the Tahsildar considers and passes appropriate fresh orders.
4. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No.3-Tahsidlar shall follow the directions of the appellate authority and conduct fresh enquiry and consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner and respondent No.4 expeditiously.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 15, 2014 LMV