IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.28136 of 2014 BETWEEN Imam Reddy and another.
AND ... PETITIONERS The Tahsildar, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. PARSA ANANTHA NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioners question the impugned memo issued by the first respondent on 10.07.2014 wherein the bore well dug by the petitioner in the land to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.797 of Gonegandla village and Mandal, is seized on the ground of violation of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’).
3. Since the impugned memo, prima facie, appeared to be without notice to the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader was required to get instructions.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that notices were prepared but the petitioners avoided to receive the same. However, on physical inspection it is found that there is another bore well apart from the one seized under the impugned memo.
5. The fact, however, remains that the impugned memo is issued seizing the bore well of the petitioners contrary to Section 15 of the Act, as it was issued without notice and opportunity to the petitioners. Hence, the seizure ordered under the impugned memo is set aside. The impugned memo shall be treated as a notice and the petitioners are permitted to file explanation within a period of two (2) weeks from today. It is open for the first respondent to issue any further notice, if warranted, on the basis of inspection said to have already been made by the first respondent and invite explanation from the petitioners and then hear and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Section 15 of the Act.
The writ petition is allowed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 24, 2014 DSK