Page 1 of 5
WP No.16022_2008
SK,J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.16022 of 2008
ORDER:-
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
"....to issued a writ of Certiorari calling for all
the connected records including the impugned
order of the 1st respondent
No.H3/GB/Special.Cell/5437/2008 dated 19.06.2008 and consequential seizure of bore-well by the 2nd respondent as illegal., improper, unjust, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to draw the water from bore well situated in Sy.No.172 to an extent of Ac.4.20 guntas situated at Elikatta village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District"
2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents. Page 2 of 5
WP No.16022_2008 SK,J
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.172 to an extent of Elikatta village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. In the month of January, 1999 the petitioner dug a bore-well in the said property and obtained service connection from the Electricity Department and a 5 HP Electricity Motor has been fixed to the said bore-well and drawing the water for irrigating the land. While it being so, basing on the representation made by the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent issued impugned orders on 19.06.2008. In pursuance of the said orders the 2nd respondent instructed the revenue Inspector and VRO to seize the bore-well and accordingly the bore-well was seized on 2.7.2008 under cover of a panchanama. The impugned order was passed without following the provisions under WALTA (Water, Page 3 of 5 WP No.16022_2008 SK,J Land and Trees Act) and the 1st respondent without conducting any enquiry have issued impugned proceedings and the same is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:
1. P.Narayana Reddy Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer and others1,
2. B.Venkatesu Vs. The Thasildar, Puttparthy, Ananthapur District and others in WP No.15992 of 2011, dt.18.11.2011,
3. Gurram Kistaiah Vs. State of Telangana and others in W.P.No.6182 of 2015 dated 11.03.215
5. At the stage of admission, this Court granted interim suspension of impugned order on 24.07.2018. Notice has been served to all the respondents, but as on today the respondents did not chose to file counters in this matter.
1 AIR 2005 AP 181 Page 4 of 5 WP No.16022_2008 SK,J
6. Admittedly, the respondents without following the provisions of WALTA Act passed the present impugned orders. The judgments relied on the learned counsel for the petitioner squarely apply to the instant case.
7. In Gurram Kistaiah Vs. State of Telagnana and others case (supra 3) at para No.3 this Court held that:
"The requirement of compliance of the opportunity of submitting objections and explanation and giving opportunity of hearing needs no emphasis especially when an adverse action leading to civil consequences are the result of action of the respondents. There is no reason for disbelieving the petitioner's affidavit with respect to the averments that the petitioner's bore well has been seized on the same day. If the petitioner's bore well has not been seized on the same day virtually there is no requirement of an illiterate man approaching this Court by invoking the jurisdiction of Article 22 of the Constitution of India".Page 5 of 5
WP No.16022_2008 SK,J
8. In view of the same, the impugned Orders is liable be set aside.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date:07/12/2022 trr