Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 702
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, C.J., MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.
Muth Khaki Baba – Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar, Nampally Mandal Nampally – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14703 of 2014
Decided on : 28-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : VENKATA RAGHU MANNEPALLI
For the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE
IMPORTANT POINT
The designated authority must exercise statutory powers independently, without external influence, to ensure the legality of administrative actions.
Headnote:
(A) Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 - Section 23(2) - Writ petition challenging order of Tahsildar regarding encroachment on Musi river bed - The petitioners claimed ownership of land, but the order was issued under the 2002 Act directing removal of encroachments - The designated officer has the power to prevent encroachments, but the order was influenced by higher authorities, rendering it unsustainable - The impugned order was quashed, allowing the designated authority to act in accordance with law. (Paras 7, 10)
(B) Legal Authority - The power conferred by statute must be exercised by the designated authority alone, without external influence. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, a religious institution, claimed ownership of land and challenged the Tahsildar's order to remove encroachments on the Musi river bed, asserting that the order was improperly influenced by higher authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Tahsildar's order was invalid as it was issued under external pressure, quashing the order but allowing future action in accordance with law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tahsildar's order was valid given the influence of higher authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that powers conferred by statute must be exercised by the designated authority alone, without external influence.
Result: The impugned order was quashed.
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the validity of order dated 28.04.2014 passed by the Tahsildar under the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2002 Act”).
3. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners, relevant facts are mentioned below.
4. Petitioner No.1 is the religious institution and is situated at Petla Burj, Hyderabad. The petitioners claim that land admeasuring Acs.3.24 guntas belongs to the Muth, namely, Khaki Baba registered with the endowment department. It is further averred that land measuring Acs.2.50 guntas belongs to Hanuman Temple. It is also averred that in open land admeasuring Acs.5.24 ½ guntas, the constructed property of the Muth and temple has been shown in the survey conducted by Asif Jah Ruler Nizam-VII in the year 1913.
5. Order dated 28.04.2014 was issued to the petitioners in purported exercise of powers under Section 23(2) of the 2002 Act by which the petitioners were informed that they have encroached on Musi river bed and they were directed to remove the encroachment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which penalty will be levied on them under the 2002 Act.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record.
7. The 2002 Act is an Act enacted with an object to promote water conservation and tree cover and regulate the exploitation and use of ground and surface water for protection and conservation of water sources. Section 2(2) of the 2002 Act defined the expression “Designated Officer” to mean an officer or any person so designated by the authority to perform the functions under the 2002 Act. The expression “Authority” has been defined to mean the Andhra Pradesh State Water, Land and Trees Authority constituted under Section 3 of the 2002 Act. Section 23 of the 2002 Act deals with protection of lakes, ponds and tanks. The relevant extract of Section 23 reads as under:
“23. Protection of lakes, ponds and tanks –
(1) The authority may notify water bodies like lakes, village ponds and minor irrigation tanks along with nalas (water course or drainage course) as heritage bodies and conservation areas to prevent conversion of their intended use and the authority shall take all measures to permanently demarcate the boundaries through the department of the Government or the organization concerned as per the memoirs lakes/tanks/ponds/nalas (water course or drainage course) and shall take measures to evict and prevent encroachment. For this purpose, the Authority may give directions to the concerned department, agency, statutory body or official and upon such direction, the concerned department, agency, statutory body or official shall comply with such directions. The authority may also issue guidelines in this regard and the guidelines shall be complied with by all the concerned.
(2) The designated officer shall have the power to prevent and remove encroachments into the demarcated area of the water body.”
8. Thus, it is evident that the designated officer under the 2002 Act has power to prevent and to remove the encroachments into the demarcated area of the water body. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Tahsildar is the designated officer under the 2002 Act, who is empowered to take action under Section 23(2) of the 2002 Act.
9. It is well settled legal proposition that when the statute confers power on a particular authority, such a power has to be exercised by that authority alone and not at the dictates of the higher authorities. (see Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16)).
10. In the instant case, though the Tahsildar is the designated authority under the 2002 Act, from a perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the Insp
