High Court for State of TelanganaWP/18516/2015disposed of no costs

Nalamari Ankamma, W/O. Subramanyam, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.

2015-06-24Case Is In Onwards List2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.18516 of 2015 BETWEEN Nalamari Ankamma.

... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard.

2. Petitioner questions the notice issued by the Tahsildar, dated 17.05.2015. Said notice calls upon the petitioner to bring the concerned papers and to present before the Tahsildar on 19.06.2015 to answer the complaint of respondent No.4 that the petitioner has dug a bore well within 20 feet on her land. It appears that respondent No.4 has dug a bore well in survey No.85/6, whereas petitioner has dug the bore well in Survey No.85/7 of Thallampadu village, Thallampadu gram panchayat, Doravarisathram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. On the complaint of respondent No.4, the

aforesaid notice was issued as the collector had asked the Tahsildar to enquire into the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has appeared on 19.06.2015, but no explanation was filed and apprehending that the borewell would be seized, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Obviously, petitioner was given only a notice and she can as well appear before respondent No.3 and submit her explanation so as to enable respondent No.3 to examine the complaint of respondent No.4 and the explanation and take appropriate decision in the matter.

5. Since the petitioner has not yet filed explanation, she is granted time to file explanation on or before 29.06.2015. The Tahsildar shall thereafter consider the said explanation and take appropriate decision in the matter. It is needless to point out that till the Tahsildar passes appropriate orders, petitioner's bore well shall not be seized by respondent No.2 and the same shall depend upon the orders that would be passed by the Tahsildar, as directed herein.

With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 24, 2015 Note:- Furnish copy by today.

{B/o} LMV