WP/26869/2005 of Vital Rao, Vs The District Collector, on 29 December 2005

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION No.26869 of 2005

The petitioner is a resident of Allapur Village in Medak District. He claims to be theabsolute owner and possessor of land in Survey Nos.1/AA(1/2), 59, 94/AA, 119/AAand Survey No.120/AA admeasuring Ac.1.36 guntas, Ac.10.21 guntas, Ac.5.03guntas, Ac.0.16 guntas and Ac.1.00 respectively. He allegedly dug two bore wellsfitted with electrical connection and using the same for cultivating Sugarcane cropsand Banana trees. When one Mogulaiah and two others tried to interfere with hisenjoyment, he filed a suit, being O.S.No.406 of 2005 on the file of the Court of thePrincipal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, and obtained ad interim injunction on02.09.2005 in I.A.No.1038 of 2005, which is still subsisting. In the meanwhile, thesecond respondent tried to interfere, compelling the petitioner to issue a legal noticeon 17.09.2005. The petitioner contends that the second respondent has no power orauthority to interfere with the land in Survey No.1/AA(1/2), admeasuring Ac.1.36guntas or with the use of the bore wells.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General). The learned Assistant Government Pleader hasproduced before this Court the relevant file from the office of the second respondent,which would show that the bore well was dug in the Village, which got submerged inSingur Dam. The two bore wells were dug by the Government, but the petitioner tookpossession of the same and using them for his own purpose. Therefore, byconducting panchanama on 23.08.2005, the Mandal Revenue Officer tookpossession of the same. In view of this, the ad interim injunction order passed by thecivil Court is of no avail to the petitioner, especially when the Mandal RevenueOfficer or any other revenue Officer is not made a party to the said suit. If thepetitioner is still aggrieved by the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer, he may filean appropriate application before the first respondent for redressal.

The Writ Petition, with the above observation, is dismissed. No costs.

____________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

29.12.2005

vs