Telangana High Court
Ravi Mudhavath, Pudur, R.R.District vs The Dist.Collector,Mahabubnagar And ... on 12 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.15880 of 2012
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"....to issue writ, order or direction especially one in the Nature of
Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.A/6685/2011 dated
15.05.2012 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice,
contrary to the provisions of A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and the
rules made there under and one without jurisdiction, consequently set
aside the same and direct the respondents to release the petitioner's
vehicle bearing No.AP 28 X 6566 ......"
2. Heard Ms.K.Swapna, learned counsel, representing
Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2
seized the vehicles of the petitioner on the alleged ground that the
petitioner is illegally transporting the sand through proceedings
No.A/6685/2011 dated 15.05.2012 and also imposed penalty.
Questioning the same, the petitioner has 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.20470 of 2012 directing the
respondents to release the vehicle bearing No.AP 28 X 6566 subject to
the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.25,000/- before
the 2nd respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner is also standing on the very same footing and
the principle laid down in the above said case is squarely applicable to
the petitioner.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has 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
referred supra, the impugned proceedings dated 15.05.2012 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
petitioner, which was deposited pursuant to the interim order dated
30.05.2012, within a period of two (2) months 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: 12.07.2024
mar
