IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.28593 of 2014 BETWEEN M. Prameelamma.
AND ... PETITIONER Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. O. MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Keeping in view the issue involved, it is just and appropriate to dispose of the writ petition itself at the stage of admission.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and in view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.4.
3. It appears that on the complaint made by the fourth respondent, the second respondent called for a report from the third respondent and on the basis of the report furnished that the bore well of the petitioner in Sy.No.524 of Puttaparthi Village and Mandal is dug without prior permission, straightaway the order of seizure of bore well was passed against the petitioner under impugned proceedings dated 17.09.2014.
4. That order is, therefore, questioned in the writ petition,
inter alia, on the ground that it is passed without notice and without conducting any enquiry.
5. A reading of the order itself shows that on the complaint of the fourth respondent as noticed in reference No.1 and report of the third respondent as noticed in reference No.1, the impugned order is passed directing seizure of the bore well without even a notice or opportunity to the petitioner to explain. On the face of it, the order is, therefore, contrary to Section 15 of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002.
6. The impugned order so far as directing the seizure of the bore well of the petitioner cannot be sustained and shall stand set aside to the extent of seizure of the bore well. The impugned order, however, shall be treated as a notice under Section 15 of the Act, referred to above, to the extent of allegations appearing against the petitioner and petitioner is permitted to file a reply before the second respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from today and thereafter, considering the said reply and the report of the third respondent and after notice and hearing the petitioner as well as respondent No.4, the second respondent to take a final decision and pass appropriate orders in terms of the Section 15 of the Act.
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 September 23, 2014
Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 24.09.2014
(B/o) DSK