WA/1665/2014 of Baru Mallikarjuna Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2014

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTAAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL No.1665 of 2014

DATE: 30.12.2014

Between:Baru Mallikarjuna Rao,R/o. Chiannapareddipalli Village,Kalavalapudi Panchayat,SPSR Nellore District.

… Appellant

And

The State of Andhra Pradesh,rep. by its Principal Secretary,Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others.

… Respondents

This Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL No.1665 of 2014

Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

This appeal is admitted. Having regard to the scope of thecontroversy involved in this matter, we think that hearing of this appealobserving all formalities is not required.

The unofficial respondent, despite notice, did not appear beforethe learned trial Judge. So, we feel that no notice is required to beserved upon him for hearing out of this appeal.

We have heard the learned counsels for the appellant and theState.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of thelearned trial Judge, who has disposed of the writ petition, by which, theorder of the Collector and District Magistrate, SPSR Nellore District,who is the appellate authority under Section 33 of the A.P. Water, Landand Trees Act, 2002 (for short ‘the WALTA Act’) was confirmed.

The unofficial respondent preferred a statutory appeal beforethe Collector, on which, the order impugned before the leaned trialJudge was passed. The Tahasildar after considering the application,granted permission to the appellant to dig a bore well. However, theunofficial respondent being a resident of that area, preferred an appealagainst the said order. The appellate authority, it appears, invited theexplanation of the appellant, who offered the same.

We have examined the order of the appellate authority closelyand we find that the appellate authority has not passed any speaking order meaning thereby no reason nor discussions were recorded as towhy the explanation offered by the appellant was not acceptable tohim. Further more, the appellate authority has relied on extraneousmaterials, namely, the report of the Deputy Director, Ground WaterDepartment of the ground water availability, and it was not supplied tothe appellant at all.

Under the circumstances, as rightly contended by the learnedcounsel for the appellant, the order impugned before the learned trialJudge is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Wethink the learned trial Judge should have taken note of the aforesaidlacuna. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned trial Judgeand also the order of the appellate authority. However, we direct theappellate authority to re-hear the matter after supplying the report orany materials, which are sought to be relied on to both the parties andafter hearing them, without being influenced by the impugned decision,the appellate authority, obviously will pass appropriate order inaccordance with law recording reasons. The entire exercise shall becompleted afresh within a period of eight weeks from the date ofcommunication of this order.

The writ appeal is accordingly allowed.

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shallalso stand closed. No costs.

_________________

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

_________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J