In a writ petition, the High Court quashed a notice for removal of structures issued to a tenant without prior opportunity. The court directed the municipality to treat it as a show cause notice and conduct a summary enquiry.
Direction to treat notice as show cause notice and allow six weeks to file objections.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.6248 of 2009
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed questioning the notice, dated 16.03.2009, issued in proceedings No.G1/121/2009 by respondent No.1-Municipality.
In the aforesaid notice, it is alleged that the petitioner has encroached the 60 feet master plan road by erecting temporary sheds on the side of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation bus stand.
It is the case of the petitioner that he is the tenant of the premises in question and the owner of the same has already filed a suit for injunction and tried to evict him now and only at the instance of respondent No.2, the impugned notice is issued. It is his grievance that though there is no encroachment, without giving any opportunity, the impugned notice is issued for removal straightaway.
It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that the owner of the premises in question has already given consent for showing 60 feet road in the master plan as such, the petitioner is not having any right to continue therein. Whether the properties, which are affected by the masterplan, are notified by paying compensation or not is a matter for enquiry by the respondents. When it is alleged that the impugned notice is issued to the petitioner only at the instance of respondent No.2, who is the purchaser of the property, so as to evict him under the guise of encroachment, the respondents ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner before issuing the impugned notice for removal of the structures. From a perusal of the
impugned notice also, there is no indication of giving any prior opportunity to the petitioner. When the alleged encroachment is disputed, the finding has to be recorded thereon by conducting summary enquiry.
For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to treat the impugned notice as show cause notice for removal of structures. The petitioner is permitted to file his explanation/objections to the proposed removal within a period of six (6) weeks from today. Respondent No.1 shall examine the objections to be filed by the petitioner and take further steps in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is made clear that if no explanation is filed within the time frame referred to above, it is open to respondent No.1 to proceed further and pass appropriate orders. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
R.SUBHASH REDDY,J
Dt:05.12.2011. kdl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned notice issued for removal of structures should be treated as a show cause notice to afford prior opportunity to the petitioner.
Whether a summary enquiry regarding alleged encroachment is warranted when the encroachment is disputed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2
R.Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
