THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.898 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in seizing the bore well of the petitioner situated in Sy.Nos.61/A3 and 62/E of Turkapally village, Narayankhed Mandal, Medak District, as illegal and arbitrary. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the agricultural lands covered by Sy.Nos.61/A3 and 62/E of Turkapally village, Narayankhed Mandal, Medak District, and got dug a bore well in the said land, to which the Electricity Board granted Service Connection No.208. The grievance of the petitioner is that on a complaint lodged by his neighbour by name Sai Reddy, his bore well was seized by the respondent without issuing any notice and without causing any enquiry. Hence, this writ petition. Though the writ petition relates to the year 2005, the respondent has not filed the counter affidavit. As per the provisions of A.P. Water, Land & Trees Act, 2002, the Tahsildar has no authority to seize the bore well of any individual, unless it affects the public source of water. In the case on hand, the respondent ought not to have taken such a drastic action of seizing the borewell of the petitioner on a mere complaint lodged by the neighbour of the petitioner, which is the only source of drawing water for the petitioner to irrigate his agricultural fields. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondent in seizing the bore well of the petitioner is deprecated. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and if the bore well of the petitioner is still under seizure, the same shall be released forthwith. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 18.11.2010 v v WRIT PETITION No.136 of 2005 ORDER: It appears, aggrieved by proceedings dated 10.07.2001 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 10(6) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, who, after verifying the records and documents filed by the petitioner, allowed the appeal setting aside the proceedings issued under Section 10(6) of the Act and declaring that the petitioner is not a surplus landholder. The petitioner contends that in spite of the fact that the appeal filed by her against the proceedings issued under Section 10(6) of the Act was allowed, the 1st respondent allotted her land to an extent of 425.55 sq. meters to the 3rd respondent, for construction of office, and the 4th respondent handed over possession on paper on 22.10.2003, without issuing any notice to her. Thereupon, the petitioner made a representation dated 15.01.2005 to the 2nd respondent, bringing to his notice about all the facts including the quashing of Section 10(6) proceedings and requesting him to direct the 3rd respondent not to enter into her premises, and also submitted copies of her representations to the 1st and 4th respondents also. …