Telangana High Court
WP/23405/2004 of Pollampally Sambha Reddy, Vs The District Collector, on 27 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23405 of 2004 Between: Pollampally Sambha Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, R/o. Chapala Bhanda,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO : 23405 of 2004
Between:
Pollampally Sambha Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy,R/o. Chapala Bhanda, Duggondi Mandal, NarsampetTaluk, District Warangal.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The District Collector, Warangal District.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsampet, District Warangal.
3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Duggondi Mandal, Narsampet Taluk, District Warangal.
4 The Divisional Inspector, RWS Narsampet.
5 Raja Mouli, S/o. Not Known,
R/o. Sairampally, Mandal Duggondi, District Warangal.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue an Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the official Respondents herein in undertaking theconstruction of new well within the prohibited distance to the well owned by thePetitioner as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of the A.P. Water, Land andTrees Act, 2002 and the rules made there under, high handed, without any sanctionof law and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Fundamental Rightsguaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondentsto drop proposal for construction of new well within the prohibited distance.
For the Petitioner: MR. P. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE
For the Respondent No.5: --
The Court at the stage of admission made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forRevenue.
The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the action of the official respondentNos.1 to 4 in digging open well through 5[th] respondent-contractor violating theprovisions of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 within the prohibiteddistance to the well owned by the petitioner. He states that this Court by order dated23-11-2004 in W.P. No.21392 of 2004, directed the first respondent-DistrictCollector, Warangal to consider and dispose of his representation, dated 19-11-2004 within a period of one week. His grievance is that in spite of receiving the saidorder in the first respondent’s office on 27-11-2004, no action has been taken, andon the other hand the official respondents are permitting the 5[th] respondent fordigging of Well. Hence, the present writ petition.
When the matter came up before this Court on 20-12-2004, this Court passed anorder directing the 5[th] respondent not to take up any construction work and alsodirecting the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsampet to appear before this Court todayand explain the reasons for not complying the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.21392 of 2004, dated 23-11-2004.
When the matter came up today, the learned Government Pleader for Revenueproduced the remarks submitted by the first respondent-District Collector in the formof a letter, dated 24-12-2004, wherein it is stated by the first respondent that the wireorder of this Court in W.P. No.21392 of 2004, dated 23-11-2004 was delivered in theCollectorate on 27-11-2004, but the said fact was not brought to his notice, andtoday only he came to know of it, and he is calling for the explanation of theconcerned who failed to bring the order to his notice. It is also stated that he isissuing notice to the petitioner as well as the 5[th] respondent to dispose of the matteron 30-12-2004, and meanwhile the Executive Engineer, RWS, Warangal andMandal Revenue Officer, Duggondi already stopped the work on 06-12-2004. Heseeks time up to
31-12-2004 to pass final orders on the representation made by the petitioner, dated19-11-2004, in compliance of the order of this Court, dated 23-11-2004 in W.P.No.21392 of 2004.
In the circumstances, recording the above submissions of the first respondent, thewrit petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent-District Collector,Warangal District to consider and dispose of the representation, dated 19-11-2004submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously. No costs.
______________
N.V. RAMANA, J
Date: 27-12-2004
Svv
To
1 The District Collector, Warangal District.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsampet, District Warangal.
3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Duggondi Mandal, Narsampet Taluk, District, Warangal. District, Warangal.
4 The Divisional Inspector, RWS Narsampet 5 Two C.Cs to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, A.P.,Hyderabad (OUT).Hyderabad (OUT).
6 Two C.D. copies.