IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 20974 of 2014 BETWEEN T.Chinnanarayan Reddy AND ... PETITIONERS The District Collector , Medak District, At Sanga Reddy Medak District and another ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. By the present writ petition, petitioner questions the action of respondent No.2 in seizing the electrical equipment attached to petitioner’s borewell in Survey Nos.1032 and 1033 of Narsingi Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District. Petitioner states that against the orders of the Tahsildar seizing the petitioner’s aforesaid borewell under order dated 08.11.2013, he preferred an appeal and the said appeal was allowed by the Collector in proceedings No.D3/5272/13 dated 06.01.2014, whereby the orders of the Tahsildar dated 08.11.2013 was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal after affording opportunity to all concerned. The complaint of the petitioner is that contrary to the order of the Collector, the Tahsildar has seized the electrical equipment and not permitting the petitioner to utilize the said borwell.
3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, states that as per the orders of the Collector, the Tahsildar shall implement the order by conducting fresh enquiry after affording opportunity to both the parties; to the extent of the allegation of the petitioner it is stated that the seized property has already been handed over to the petitioner; that during the enquiry it is revealed that the daughter of the petitioner by name Smt.Sukanya is drawing water from the new bore well from the fields to raise crops with the help of electrical connection.
4. However, since it is accepted that the orders of the Collector, referred to above, are to be implemented and matter requires to be examined afresh by the Tahsildar after opportunity to both sides, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 Tahsildar to complete the enquiry as ordered by the Collector in the order, referred to above, by affording opportunity to both sides and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
With the above direction, the writ petition is 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 August 4, 2014 LMV