Telangana High Court
K. Mallesh, R.R.Dist. vs The Tahsildar, Mahabubnagar Dist., And ... on 20 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16124 of 2012
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"....to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more
particularly a Writ in nature of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings
No.A/795/2012 dated 28.05.2012 of the respondents 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
respondetns to release the petitioner's vehicle bearing No.AP 29 TA 2835
..."
2. Heard Sri N. Rishi Kumar, learned counsel, representing
Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1
seized the vehicle of the petitioner on the alleged ground that the
petitioner is illegally transporting the sand through proceedings
No.A/795/2012 dated 28.05.2012 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.20771 of 2012 directing
respondent No.1 to release the petitioner's vehicle bearing No.AP 29
TA 2835 subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of
Rs.25,000/- with respondent No.1 until further orders to be passed in
the writ petition.
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 Pleaders have not disputed the
same.
1 2016 (1) ALD 348
7. In view of the above said submissions made by the respective
parties and the principle laid down in the above said judgment
referred supra, the impugned proceedings dated 28.05.2012 issued by
respondent No.1 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
