Allowed

D. Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Jun 2015WP/13010/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a notice issued under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act directing removal of a thatched shed due to lack of prior notice and hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The petition was allowed, and the respondent directed to issue a fresh notice with reasons.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 16-03-2015 set aside; respondent directed to issue fresh notice with reasons, permit explanation submission within three weeks, and fix date for personal hearing.

D. Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.13010 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of land to an extent of 4 cents having D.No.6-123, Ambedkar Nagar, Movva Village & Mandal, Krishna District. He is paying the property tax and electricity bills. He was issued household card, voter I.D. and Aadhar Card belonging to the same door number. It is stated that a small thatched shed/house is constructed in the said premises, and the petitioner is living therein for the past several years. While so, the Panchayat Secretary, Movva Mandal, Krishna District, the 4th respondent herein issued the impugned notice, dated 16-03-2015, under the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, directing the petitioner to remove the thatched house within seven days, failing which action will be initiated for removal of the encroachment. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayt Raj, for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner before taking such an extreme step of removal of the structures, and therefore, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. It is stated that the Government itself issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.555, dated 03-12-1999, prescribing the procedure to be followed in the matter of removal of encroachments, if any, and the respondents cannot take such an extreme step, without even considering the explanation of the

¶7

petitioner.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent-Gram Panchayt does not dispute the fact that no notice was issued,

¶9

prior to the impugned proceedings are served on the petitioner.

¶10

Having regard to the said submissions made by the learned counsel, the impugned notice dated 16-03-2015, issued by the

¶11

th 4 respondent is set aside, and the writ petition is allowed.

¶12

The 4th respondent is directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner, incorporating the details of reasons for holding that he is in unauthorised occupation of about 4 cents of land. After receipt of such notice, the petitioner shall submit his explanation within a period of three weeks. He is also entitled to submit the relevant documents

¶13

in support of his claim. On receipt of such explanation,

¶14

the 4th respondent shall fix a date of personal hearing; consider the explanation as well as the submissions made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner shall cooperate with the enquiry and appear on the date fixed by the

¶15

th 4 respondent. If the petitioner does not cooperate in the enquiry and does not appear on the date so fixed for his personal hearing, it is open to the 4th respondent to pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in the writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

________________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J. Dt.16-06-2015.

¶18

D. Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Venkateswara Rao, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Enumula Satyanarayana, S/o. Shankaraiah, Vs The State of Telangana

T.V. Nanchariah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary

Mohd Amanullah Shareef Vs State of Telalangana

A. Somaiah Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

P.Eswaraprasad Raju Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Katta Nageshwara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh