Disposed

Indhukuri Murali Krishnam Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Nov 2023WP/29520/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition challenging threats to demolish petitioners' houses pending a revenue hearing. The bench directed the Gram Panchayat to conduct a personal hearing on a future date before passing any orders and directed maintenance of status quo. The petition was disposed of at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Personal hearing directed to be conducted; status quo of properties maintained pending such hearing.

Indhukuri Murali Krishnam Raju Vs The… — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.29520 of 2023

¶4

Between:-

¶5

Indhukuri Murali Krishnam Raju and six others

¶6

…. Petitioners And

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Panchayat Raj Department and ten others.

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.Bokka Satyanarayana

¶10

Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Panchayat Raj

¶11

G.P. for R&B G.P. for Home G.P. for Revenue Mr. N. Srihari, Standing Counsel for 8^th respondent.

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶14

learned counsel representing the learned standing counsel for

¶15

the 8^th respondent. With their consent, the present Writ

¶16

Petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage itself.

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of

¶18

the respondents in threatening the petitioners to dispossess / demolish the residential dwelling houses situated at NA Road

¶19

¶20

of Pippara Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, in R.S.No.310/2b, adjacent to the R&B State Highway Road, during pendency of hearing and appropriate orders (not conducted the hearing on 09.11.2023) by the 8^th respondent Gram Panchayat pursuant to the hearing notice dated 01.11.2023, and also pendency of the several representations, including the representation dt.08.11.2023 for grant of house site pattas, before the revenue authorities as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for consequential directions.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners while making submissions with reference to the averments made in the writ affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia, contends that the petitioners are landless poor and they are residing in the dwelling houses in Sy.No.310/2b of Pippara village for the last 50 years. He submits that some of the petitioners are running petty businesses in the said residential houses by taking licenses from the Gram Panchayat / 8^th respondent and paying taxes and even got electricity connection to the said shops. While stating that the petitioners have requested the revenue authorities for grant of D-form pattas, he submits that to the petitioners’ utter

¶22

¶23

surprise the 8^th respondent issued notices to them dated 09.10.2023, referring to the directions stated to have been issued in W.P.(PIL) No.97 of 2023, and time was granted for submitting explanation. He submits that the petitioners submitted explanation on 16.10.2023 with a request not to take further action in view of the reasons stated therein. He further submits that subsequently the 8^th respondent issued another Notice dated 01.11.2023 inter alia, stating that a hearing will be conducted on 09.11.2023 and the petitioners may attend the same along with relevant documents. He submits that on 09.11.2023 the petitioners attended the schedule hearing and submitted the documents i.e., tax receipts, electricity bills etc., and sought time for submitting some more documents. He submits that the 8^th respondent, however, has not conducted the personal hearing. Be that as it may, he submits that now, at the behest of the unofficial respondents, the 8^th respondent is resorting to coercive action of demolition of the subject matter properties and dispossessing the petitioners. He submits that the action on the part of the 8^th respondent without passing any orders by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, is

¶24

¶25

unjust, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and as there is an imminent threat to the properties of the petitioners, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶26

Learned counsel representing the 8^th respondent on the other hand, while placing a copy of the written instructions dated 13.11.2023, made his submissions. While denying the averments made in the affidavit and the submissions that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing, learned standing counsel contends that except 4^th and 5^th petitioners, the other writ petitioners attended the hearing scheduled on 09.11.2023. He submits that the petitioners, who attended the hearing, had not submitted any documents in their favour except the electricity bills and gram panchayat tax receipts / some licenses. He further submits that further action in the matter would be taken in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

¶27

This Court considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. As is evident from the notices dated 09.10.2023 and 01.11.2023, it would appear that the 8^th respondent in the light of the directions in W.P.(PIL) No.97 of 2023 had initiated action. In view of the inaction on the part

¶28

¶29

of the concerned officials in not taking steps in respect of the encroachment of public roads, Grampanchayat properties etc., the Hon’ble Division Bench had issued directions by referring to the earlier orders passed in W.P.(PIL) No.140 of 2022 and Batch on 14.09.2022. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that pursuant to the notices issued to the petitioners herein, replies / explanations submitted and thereafter in terms of the orders of the Division Bench in the above referred matters, it would appear that the 8^th respondent has sought to conduct a personal hearing on 09.11.2023. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners while submitting the documents sought time for producing some of the documents and no personal hearing was conducted on 09.11.2023, the said aspect, which involves factual dispute, need not be examined in the present case by keeping the Writ Petition pending. As far as the present set of petitioners is concerned, their grievance is that no hearing was conducted on 09.11.2023. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the matter can as well be disposed of with a direction to the 8^th respondent to conduct personal hearing before passing appropriate orders pursuant to the notices issued to the

¶30

¶31

petitioners. It may be mentioned hear that the learned counsel for the 8^th respondent on obtaining instructions states that the 8^th respondent would conduct personal hearing on 25.11.2023 at 10.30 a.m. and the petitioners may be directed to cooperate with the hearing on that day.

¶32

In the light of the submissions made and considering the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, this Court is inclined to dispose of the matter providing that the petitioners shall attend the personal hearing on 25.11.2023 at 10.30 p.m. and after hearing them the 8^th respondent is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till passing of orders, as directed above, the status quo in respect of the subject matter properties existing as on today shall be maintained by both the parties, in all respects.

¶33

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶34

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶35

_________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J.

¶36

Date:17.11.2023. Note: Issue CC in one week

¶37

B/o Ssv

¶38

¶39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶40

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶41

WRIT PETITION No.29520 of 2023

¶42

Date:17.11.2023

¶43

ssv

Indhukuri Murali Krishnam Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indhukuri Murali Krishnam Raju 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

Kuna Naga Venkata Tulasi Das Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K.M. Abdul Hafeez Khan Vs Sri P.Arunbabu,Ias

Kollimi Alla Bakhash Vs Sri.Nishanth Reddy

R Manikya Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Surya Sakthi Nagar Plot and House Owner's Welfare Association, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Modalavalasa Neelaveni Vs the State of Ap