the act of seizing the bore well of the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of Section 15 the Act.
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT PETITION No.6182 OF 2015
11-03-2015
Gurram Kistaiah..Petitioner
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl.Secretary and 4 others...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner:Smt M.Bhagyasri
Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: GP for Revenue
<Gist:
>Head Note:
?Cases referred?:AIR 29\005 Andhra Pradesh 181
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT PETITION No.6182 OF 2015
ORDER:
Challenging the notice dated 04.02.2015, issued by the 4th
respondent-Tahsildar, alleging violations of the provisions of the
A.P Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short, the Act), the
present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th
respondent issued the impugned notice to the petitioner and on
the same day seized the bore well of the petitioner and there is a
standing crop in the land of the petitioner. The petitioner is an
illiterate man and the act of seizing the bore well of the petitioner is
in violation of the provisions of Section 15 the Act. Learned
counsel also cites a judgment reported in P. Narayana Reddy v.
Mandal Revenue Officer and others .
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on
the other hand, submits that the impugned notice issued by the
4th respondent is a only a show cause notice and he might have
passed an order and seeks time to file counter.
The requirement of compliance of the opportunity of
submitting objections and explanation and giving opportunity of
hearing needs no emphasis especially when an adverse action
leading to civil consequences are the result of action of the
respondents. There is no reason for disbelieving the petitioners
affidavit with respect to the averments that the petitioners bore
well has been seized on the same day. If the petitioners bore well
has not been seized on the same day virtually there is no
requirement of an illiterate man approaching this Court by
invoking the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent not to
interfere with the bore well of the petitioner without giving an
opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation and passing
an order after considering the same in accordance with law. While
passing orders, the 4th respondent may also take into
consideration of the compromise which has been effected by the
village elders between the petitioner and the 5th respondent who is
the complainant. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition
shall stand closed.
____________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J
Date:11.03.2015.
WRIT PETITION No.6182 OF 2015
11-03-2015
Gurram Kistaiah..Petitioner
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl.Secretary and 4 others...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner:Smt M.Bhagyasri
Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: GP for Revenue
<Gist:
>Head Note:
?Cases referred?:AIR 29\005 Andhra Pradesh 181
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT PETITION No.6182 OF 2015
ORDER:
Challenging the notice dated 04.02.2015, issued by the 4th
respondent-Tahsildar, alleging violations of the provisions of the
A.P Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short, the Act), the
present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th
respondent issued the impugned notice to the petitioner and on
the same day seized the bore well of the petitioner and there is a
standing crop in the land of the petitioner. The petitioner is an
illiterate man and the act of seizing the bore well of the petitioner is
in violation of the provisions of Section 15 the Act. Learned
counsel also cites a judgment reported in P. Narayana Reddy v.
Mandal Revenue Officer and others .
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on
the other hand, submits that the impugned notice issued by the
4th respondent is a only a show cause notice and he might have
passed an order and seeks time to file counter.
The requirement of compliance of the opportunity of
submitting objections and explanation and giving opportunity of
hearing needs no emphasis especially when an adverse action
leading to civil consequences are the result of action of the
respondents. There is no reason for disbelieving the petitioners
affidavit with respect to the averments that the petitioners bore
well has been seized on the same day. If the petitioners bore well
has not been seized on the same day virtually there is no
requirement of an illiterate man approaching this Court by
invoking the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent not to
interfere with the bore well of the petitioner without giving an
opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation and passing
an order after considering the same in accordance with law. While
passing orders, the 4th respondent may also take into
consideration of the compromise which has been effected by the
village elders between the petitioner and the 5th respondent who is
the complainant. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition
shall stand closed.
____________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J
Date:11.03.2015.
Comments
Post a Comment