WP/7824/2019 of Sri M.Chenna Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 March 2026

1. SRI M.CHENNA REDDY,, S/O. M.VENKAT REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, RIO. MUTHAKANAVARIPALLE, H/O. VENGAMVARIAPPLE NINUNANAPALLEMANDAL

CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

...PETITIONER AND

1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR.

3. THE TAHASILDAR, (FAC) NIMMANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TRANSCO, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P.LTD. MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

5. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, NIMMANAPALLE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P.LTD.,

MADANAPALLY, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

JS,J W.P.No.7824/2019

pleased topleased to issue a Writ order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Prespondent in issuing letter Roc/A30/2019 dated 13.06.2019 to the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of Law, violative of principles of natural justice apart from being violative of the A.P Water, Land and Trees Rules. 2004 and consequently set aside the same pleased to direct the 4th and the 5th respondents to restore power connection to the petitioner's electricity service connection no 5213305000806 situated at Muthakanavaripalle, Vengamvaripalle village, Nimmanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, pleased to suspend letter Roc/A30/2019 dated 13.06.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent

To vacate the interim order granted on 24.06.2019 passed in IA.No. 1 and 2 of 2019 in WP.No. 7824 of 2019 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

2. V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL)

JS,J W.P.No.7824/2019

The Court made the following ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. Sri.Sai Manoj Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though Section 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 empowers the competent authority to regulate and control activities relating to extraction and use of groundwater in accordance with law. While exercising such powers, the authority is bound to adhere to the procedure prescribed under Rule 15(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act and Rules, 2002, which mandates issuance of prior notice and affording an opportunity of hearing before taking any coercive action, including seizure of bore well equipment or disconnection of power supply. Therefore, any action taken without following the due procedure contemplated under the Act and the Rules framed there under is liable to be set aside as being violative of the principles of natural justice.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that, under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, the competent authority/committee is constituted for the purpose of regulating groundwater and granting necessary permissions in accordance with law.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits that they have not issued any notice before issuance of proceedings in Roc/A/30/2019 dated 13.06.2019.

5. In view of the submissions made on both sides, this Court finds that no notice was issued prior to the issuance of the impugned proceedings in Roc/A/30/2019 dated 13.06.2019, hence the impugned proceedings is set-aside by directing the 3rd respondent to issue notice to the petitioner within

JS,J W.P.No.7824/2019

two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Thereafter, petitioner shall submit his explanation to the same, within ten (10) days. Thereafter, Tahsildar/3rd respondent, after receipt of such explanation and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall pass appropriate orders within four (4) weeks.

6. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________

JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 01.04.2026

RSD

JS,J

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 7824/2019

Dated: 01.04.2026

RSD