High Court for State of TelanganaWP/31278/2015disposed of no costs

D. Nagaraja v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep By Its Principal Secretary,

2015-09-28Vilas V.Afzulpurkar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * WRIT PETITION No. 31278 of 2015 BETWEEN D.Nagaraju ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others ...RESPONDENTS Date of Order pronounced: 28.09.2015 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether his Lordship wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

ORDER:- Heard.

2. Petitioner states that he purchased land to an extent of Ac.3-19 cents in survey No.17/5 of Vathulur Village of Karvetinagaram Mandal, Chittoor District in the year 2010 where already a well and a bore well was dug and a submersible pump set was erected along with the service connection. It is

further stated that the pattadar passbook as well as the revenue record reflects his name. Alleging that at the instance of some villagers the fourth respondent is pressuring the petitioner to close the bore well and to seize the same, the fourth respondent is pressuring the petitioner to close his bore well, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no proceedings are issued by the fourth respondent under Section 15 of the WALTA.

4. Learned government pleader also states that if there is any violation on the part of the petitioner, appropriate action would be taken by the fourth respondent under the WALTA.

5. In view of that, the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to examine the matter afresh and if there is any violation by the petitioner and if any action is warranted to be taken against the petitioner, the fourth respondent is at liberty to follow due procedure by issuing notice under Section 15 of the WALTA and after considering the objections, free to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. However, till then petitioner's enjoyment of the said bore well would not be effected. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 28, 2015 LMV