Telangana High Court
B.Padma Reddy vs The District Collector, ... on 7 December, 2022
Bench: K. Sarath
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.
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,
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
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".
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
