Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48996 (AP)

K.L.Narasimha Reddy v. The State of A.P.

WP/7603/2018 · 2025-11-11

Ninala Jayasurya

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010174522018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION N Between: 1. K.L.NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O.K.NARAPA REDDY, AGE 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O.P.KOT GARLADINNE MAND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANATAPUR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.V.SREEMANNARAYANA for Mr. Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 7603 of 2018 K.L.NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O.K.NARAPA REDDY, AGE 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O.P.KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANATAPUR. THE TAHSILDAR, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.SREEMANNARAYANA for Mr.N PREMRAJ Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR REVENUE (AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] WEDNESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA K.L.NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O.K.NARAPA REDDY, AGE 40 YEARS, HAPALLI VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, THE TAHSILDAR, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following Order: The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent No.3 in conducting further action pursuant to Notice dated 25.07.2017 as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to take further action as per the WALTA Act, 2002. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, who made submissions with reference to instructions dated 12.11.2025 received from the 3rd respondent. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the land owners abutting to the petitioner’s land situated in Survey No.145-1 dug bore wells without obtaining permission from the competent authority as required under the WALTA Act, 2002 and as a result of the same, water level in the bore wells dug by the petitioner is getting affected. Further that the 3rd respondent having issued Notice dated 25.07.2017, had not passed any orders thereon and therefore, the present writ petition is filed. 4. As seen from the instructions referred to above, it would appear that no orders have been passed after issuance of the Notice dated 25.07.2017 and the reasons appears to be that the writ petitioner has not produced the relevant documents. Added to that, in the instructions there was a reference to the dotted land which is nothing to do with the Notice, which was issued with 3 reference to digging of bore wells, without obtaining the permission of the competent authority. Be that as it may. 5. Having issued notice, the 3rd respondent is supposed to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity to the concerned parties. As the same is not done in the present case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the matter, providing that the 3rd respondent shall pass appropriate orders with reference to the grievance of the petitioner, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7, strictly in accordance with the Law, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 12.11.2025 BLV 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P.No.7603 of 2018 Date: 12.11.2025 BLV 5