Telangana High Court
Jarupula Juma, Hyd. And Another vs Dist. Collector, Mbnr. Dist. And 2 ... on 20 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.15971 of 2012
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 and 3 in seizing the vehicles of the Petitioners bearing No.AP 12 V 0681 & AP 28 TB 6616 by proceedings No.C.No.18/E1/2012 as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents No.2 and 3 herein to release the Petitioner's vehicles forthwith ...."
2. Heard Sri T.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 seized the vehicles of the petitioners on the alleged ground that the petitioners are illegally transporting the sand through proceedings No.C.No.18/E1/2012 dated 25.05.2012 and also imposed penalty. Questioning the same, the petitioners have approached this Court and filed the present writ petition.
4. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 30.05.2012 granted interim order in W.P.M.P.No.20581 of 2012 directing respondent No.2 to release the vehicles on payment of Rs.25,000/- 2 subject to further orders in the writ petition, taking into consideration the similar directions issued in W.P.No.13366 of 2012.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar circumstances, the combined State of High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in R.Biksham and others v. District Collector, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District and others 1, held that the Mandal Revenue Officers seized the vehicles exercising the provision under Section 37 of Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and Rule 27 of the Rules, 2004 has no application and the impugned proceedings/notices are accordingly set aside and the writ petitions were allowed and the amounts collected from the petitioners pursuant to the interim order passed in the said cases shall be refunded to them within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioners are also standing on the very same footing and the principle laid down in the above said case is squarely applicable to the petitioners.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders have not disputed the same.
7. In view of the above said submissions made by the respective parties and the principle laid down in the above said judgment 1 2016 (1) ALD 348 3 referred supra, the impugned proceedings dated 25.05.2012 issued by respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside and the respondents are directed to refund the amount to the petitioners, which was deposited pursuant to the interim order dated 30.05.2012, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 20.06.2024 Note:
Issue C.C. in a week.
(b/o) mar