Allowed

Smt. S. Rajeshwari, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Jul 2022WP/7146/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order removing unauthorized construction passed without hearing. Court allowed petition, quashing the final order, directing respondent to treat it as a show cause notice, and allowing petitioner to file objections with reply. Relief granted to restore natural justice before demolition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file objections within two weeks; 2nd Respondent to consider objections after giving 3rd Respondent opportunity before taking further action.

Smt. S. Rajeshwari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh. — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7146 OF 2022

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The petitioner had taken up construction of a building in H.No.6-369/1, Gudiyattam Road, Chekara Colony, Palamaner Town after having purchased the land and earlier structures situated on that land from the previous owner on 22.07.2021. This construction is said to have been taken up after the petitioner had obtained building approval vide permit No.117/916/B/PLMR/GR/2021, dated 22.11.2021. The 2^nd respondent had issued a notice dated 10.03.2022, to the petitioner, that the petitioner had undertaken construction without obtaining any building permission and called upon the petitioner to file her objections, if any, to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent is said to have passed a final order dated 14.03.2022, even before the petitioner filed her objections and reply. Aggrieved by the said order dated 14.03.2022, calling upon the petitioner to remove the constructions made by her within seven (07) days after receipt of the notice, the petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶5

Smt.Y.Mahalakshmi, learned counsel representing

¶6

Sri K.Rammohan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said action of the 2^nd respondent is clearly highhanded and violative of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and filing of her objections to the show cause notice. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed as if the petitioner had not obtained any building

¶7

¶8

permission though the petitioner had obtained necessary building permission.

¶9

Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel submits that the 3^rd respondent had given a complaint about unauthorized construction being made by the petitioner after encroaching into the land of the 3^rd respondent. Basing on the said complaint, a show cause notice had been issued, and subsequently, a final order was passed as no objections had been received from the petitioner.

¶10

From a perusal of the show cause notice dated 10.03.2022 and the final order dated 14.03.2022, it is clear that the time granted to the petitioner for filing her objections was not sufficient and the petitioner had not been given enough time for filing her objections. In the circumstances, it must be treated that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing.

¶11

This Writ Petition is allowed directing the 2^nd respondent to treat the impugned order dated 14.03.2022 as a show cause notice. It is open to the petitioner to file her objections to the show cause notice dated 10.03.2022 and the subsequent notice dated 14.03.2022, within a period of two (02) weeks from today. Upon such objections being filed, within two (02) weeks from today, along with such material as the petitioner deems fit, and upon expiry of the said two (02) weeks or upon filing of the objections by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent shall consider the objections, if any, filed by the petitioner and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 3^rd respondent also.

¶12

¶13

Needless to say, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner until the said process is completed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶15

__________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶16

Date:18.07.2022 knl

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.7146 OF 2022

¶20

Date: 18.07.2022

¶21

knl

Smt. S. Rajeshwari, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. S. Rajeshwari, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bathula Veeranjaneyulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Harijana Co-operative Labour Contract Society Vs The State of Andhra pradesh

Smt.Gudla Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ravula Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R Srinivasulu Vs the State of Ap

Jbmvc Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh