IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 26866 of 2014 BETWEEN B.Manjulamma AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner claims to be absolute owner of land in an extent of Ac.1-00 in survey No.198/19 of Santekondapuram village, Brahmasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District. She claims that she dug a bore well in the year 2000 and she is also enjoying the electric connection to it. However, alleging that at the instance of Sarpanch the Tahsildar was given a notice, dated 04.12.2013, to the petitioner asking for explanation for the alleged violation of the WALTA. Petitioner states that he has given a detailed explanation, dated 13.12.2013, and since then the matter is pending. The present writ petition is, however, filed alleging that there are attempts to seize the bore well of the petitioner without passing any orders.
3. Similar grievance was considered by me in W.P.No.2765 of 2014, dated 08.08.2014, and the said writ petition was disposed with certain direction.
4. In view of the similarity of the grievance, this writ petition also shall stand disposed of with a similar direction, which is extracted hereunder:
“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 0shall not take any precipitative action including seizure of bore well of the petitioner”
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 11, 2014 Note:
Furnish copy by 15.06.2014.
{B/o} LMV