IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.27327 OF 2009 Between: Garapati Srilakshmi, W/o. Nutakki Satish Chowdary ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Engineer, Operation, A.P.E.P.D.C.Ltd., Dharmajigudem, Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.27327 OF 2009 ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 21.12.2009 and granted interim direction directing respondent No.2 to remove the seal of Agriculture Bore Well in respect of R.S.No.5/1A in an extent of Ac.1- 99½ cents situated in Ganapavarigudem Village, K.Gokavaram Panchayat, Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Respondent No.3 was impleaded by virtue of an order made on 28.01.2010, in W.P.MP.No.38117 of 2009. 3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents that without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, respondent No.2 sealed of the agricultural bore well of the petitioner on 07.12.2009 as highly illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the existing bore well situated in R.S.No.5/1A in an extent of Ac.1-97½ cents situated in Ganapavarigudem Village, K.Gokavaram Panchayat, Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District and pass such other suitable orders. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the order under challenge was made by respondent No.2, without issuing any prior notice as contemplated under Section 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Land and Trees Act, 2002. 5. Several facts had been narrated in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 6. Equally, in the counter affidavit filed along with the vacate application W.V.MP.No.291 of 2010 several facts in detail had been narrated. 7. Inasmuch as it is stated that respondent No.2 had taken the aforesaid action without putting the petitioner on notice and further, since it is said that by virtue of the interim order the same has been restored, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition be disposed of directing respondent No.2 to follow the procedure by putting the petitioner on notice and take appropriate decision in this regard in accordance with law as early as possible preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, status quo obtaining as on today to be maintained. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J February 10, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by tomorrow B/O.MD