Telangana High Court
WP/24798/2004 of S.Krishna Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by Principal Secretary on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.24798 of 2004 Between: S. Krishna Reddy, s/o Mudda Reddy, r/o Galibipalli Village,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO.24798 of 2004
Between:
S. Krishna Reddy, s/o Mudda Reddy, r/o Galibipalli Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Anantapur District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by Principal Secretary to Government,Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (RD.IV) Department (State Authority under A.P.Water, Land & TreesAct) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.2 The District Collector, Anantapur District (District Authority underA.P.Water, Land & Trees Act), Anantapur. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Lepakshi Mandal, Lepakshi, Anantapur District.
4 The Assistant Engineer, APTRANSCO, Lepakshi, Anantapur District.
.....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 tocall for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent inG.O.Rt.No.1901 dated 7-12-2004 and quash the same by issuance of a Writ,Direction or order, particularly one in the nature of Certiorari and consequently setaside the orders of the third respondent ordering closure of the petitioner's bore well.Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.V.SUBBA RAO
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : G.P. FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ
Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Smt.M.VINOBHA DEVI, Standing Counsel The Court, at the admission stage, 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:
The case of the petitioner is that he was sanctioned a house plot by the thirdrespondent-Mandal Revenue Officer in Galibipalli village, Lepakshi Mandal,Anantapur District under RCH 1995-96 Scheme and he constructed a house in thesaid plot and living therein. It is stated that the petitioner is having an agriculturalland abutting his house in an extent of Ac.2.57 cents in Survey Nos.175-4 and 4Aand for the purpose of agriculture, he dug bore wells in the said agricultural land. It isfurther stated that at the instigation of the Sarpanch, the third respondent, withoutconsidering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the notice issued, orderedclosure of the bore well. As against the said orders the petitioner preferred appealbefore the 2[nd] respondent-District Collector, who confirmed the order passed by thethird respondent and directed the petitioner to close the bore well dug by him in theland in question. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1[st]respondent-Government and by order dated 27.10.2003, the order of the 2[nd]respondent was kept in abeyance. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1[st]respondent without issuing any notice either to him or to his counsel and withouthearing the matter, issued the impugned orders dated 07.12.2004 withholding theorders of the 2[nd] respondent-District Collector and vacated the orders issued by theGovernment on 27.10.2003 and also ordered to seize the bore well dug by him.Hence, he filed the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader forPanchayat Raj and Rural Development. Both counsel agreed to dispose of the writpetition at the admission stage itself with a direction to the 1[st] respondent-AppellateAuthority to rehear the matter after issuing notice to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 07.12.2004 passed by the 1[st] respondent-Appellate Authority does not indicate that the said order was passed after issuingnotice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Under thecircumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the followingdirections.
The impugned order dated 07.12.2004 passed by the
1[st] respondent-Appellate Authority is hereby set aside and the 1[st] respondent-Appellate Authority is directed to re-hear the appeal after issuing notice to thepetitioner by fixing a date of hearing and affording reasonable opportunity of hearingto the petitioner pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Till the disposal ofthe said appeal status quo obtaining as on today with regard to bore well shall bemaintained.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the admissionstage. No costs.
________________
(N.V. RAMANA, J)
Date: 30.12.2004Nsr/Tvk
.... REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER
1 The Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (RD.IV) Department (State Authority under A.P.Water, Land & Trees Act) Secretariat Buildings, State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
2 The District Collector, Anantapur District (District Authority under A.P.Water, Land & Trees Act), Anantapur.
3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Lepakshi Mandal, Lepakshi, Anantapur District.
4 The Assistant Engineer, APTRANSCO, Lepakshi, Anantapur District.
5 Two CCS to GP for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, High Court of AP, Hyderabad (OUT)
6 Two CD copies.