WP/39043/2013 of P Vasudeva Rao Vs The District Collector Hyderabad on 31 December 2013

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to setaside memo in Lr.No.A/28116/2013, dated 12.12.2013, ofrespondent No.3, whereby he has rejected the petitioners’request for granting permission for deepening the bore-well in the premises bearing H.Nos.12-11-1518/1 and 12-11-1519, Boudha Nagar, Warasiguda, Musheerabad(M)-Hyderabad, on the ground that the said land is recordedas “G (Government Land)” in the revenue records.

Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, the learned counsel for thepetitioners, submitted that his clients will avail the remedyof appeal under Section 33 of the Andhra Pradesh Water,Land and Trees Act, 2002. He has, however, submittedthat the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioners’possession of the above-mentioned land including the bore-well without initiating appropriate proceedings.

After hearing the learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for Revenue (Telangana area), I find merit in thesubmissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

While the validity of the impugned memo rejectingthe petitioners’ application can be the subject matter ofthe appeal, the respondents cannot interfere with thepetitioners’ possession of the above-mentioned propertyincluding the bore-well, unless appropriate proceedingsunder the extant enactment are initiated. Therefore, whilegiving liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy ofappeal against the impugned memo, the respondents arerestrained from interfering with the petitioners’ possessionof the subject property including the bore-well withoutfollowing due process of law.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,W.P.M.P.No.48502 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

____________________________

JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY

31[st] December, 2013DR