IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO : 965 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/06/2009 in WP NO : 10152 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Kothuru Mallanna s/o Bheemappa, Agedabout 60 years, R/o: Kariganipalli village, Kundurpi mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Tahsildar (MRO), Kundurpi mandal, Ananthapur District. 2. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, A.P. Transco, Kundurpi Mandal, Ananthapur District. 3. The District Collector, Ananthapur District. 4. Grama panchayat, Kariganipalli village, Kundurpi mandal, Ananthapur District, Rep.by its Sarpanch. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR. O.MANOHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2&3: G.P. REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. T.P.ACHARYA The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order, dated 17.06.2009 made in W.P. No.10152 of 2007 by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition with an observation that the discretionary jurisdiction of this court cannot be extended to the petitioner who has suppressed the fact of filing of writ petition earlier by his wife and withdrawning the same after the counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent No.1, the writ petitioner is in appeal. The appellant herein filed the above writ petition assailing action of the respondents in disconnecting the power supply to the borewell with service connection No. 113 so also the prevention of drawing water from the borewell of the petitioner located in premises Dr.No. 1-121 of Kariganipalli village, Kundurpi mandal, Ananthapur District. The learned single Judge, having observed that wife of the appellant herein has filed WP No. 27105 of 2006 wherein she claimed a similar relief contending that her husband dug a borewell over the Government land in Sy. No. 98 and that on complaint of the villagers, he was prevented from using the said borewell, dismissed the writ petition observing that the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be extended to the appellant who has suppressed the factum of filing writ petition earlier by his wife and withdrawn the same after counter-affidavit was filed by the first respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal is filed. It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has dug the borewell in his own land, but according to the respondents, the land belongs to the Gram Panchayath and he is not allowing the people of the village to draw water from the said borewell and, as such, the power supply to the borewell was rightly disconnected. Evidently, there are disputed questions of fact as to the title of the land over which the borewell is alleged to have been dug by the appellant, which cannot be decided in an extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, leaving it open to the appellant to avail the remedies under law before appropriate forum, we dispose of the writ appeal. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ____________________ Justice G.V.Seethapathy August 06, 2009 MAS