Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N R Raghavendra vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2021
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
WRIT PETITION No.30117 of 2021
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the action of respondents in attempting to demolish the commercial building bearing No.18-2-85/1 of Hindupuram as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently sought direction to respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the said building.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri K. Suresh Kumar Reddy, appearing on behalf of Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation for respondents 2 and 3.
The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.2.30 cents covered by R.S.No.39-1C, 39-3A and 39-2B respectively having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 10.11.2017. Thereafter, he has applied for building plan to construct a commercial complex and accordingly building permit order, dated 13.07.2018, was passed by the concerned authority. It is stated that thereafter as per the said building permission, the commercial complex was constructed as per the approved plan by strictly adhering to the norms.
While so, the 2nd respondent - Commissioner visited the subject property on 10.11.2021 with his men to demolish the said building. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ 2 Petition No.26466 of 2021 and this Court passed an interim order not to interfere with his possession without following the due process of law. However, it is stated, that the 2nd respondent again along with his men came to the subject property and tried to demolish the said property. The petitioner issued legal notice to him. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice, dated 13.12.2021, calling for his explanation within three days as to why the structure should not be demolished. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted his explanation as called for. However, without considering the said explanation and without passing any final order on the said notice that the 2nd respondent is again making effort to demolish the commercial complex of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing this Writ Petition claiming the aforesaid relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the show cause notice, it is alleged that the petitioner has encroached on to the land covered by Sy.No.39-2B and 39-3A. He would submit that the petitioner did not encroach any such land and the petitioner is the owner of the land covered by R.S.No.39- 1C, 39-3A and 39-2B. So, the alleged show cause notice issued to the petitioner that he encroached on to their land is not correct as he is the owner of the said land. He would further submit that even without passing any final order on the said notice after receiving explanation from the petitioner that the respondents are trying to demolish the said structure without following the due process of law.
3
Sri K. Suresh Kumar Reddy, appearing on behalf of Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation for respondents 2 and 3, would submit that the petitioner did not assert as to how he got title to the property in the show cause notice and only a bald assertion is made that he is the owner of the said property and that he did not encroach on to the said property. Further, he would submit that the respondents would follow due process of law after passing a final order to that effect.
Even though the petitioner did not assert in any specific terms as to how he got the title to the property in question in the explanation submitted by him, as can be seen from the pleadings in the Writ Petition, the petitioner has clearly asserted that he purchased the said property covered by R.S.No.39-3A, 39-2B along with the land covered by R.S.No.39-1C under a registered sale deed, dated 10.11.2017, and that thereafter he obtained the building permission and constructed the said commercial complex as per the approved plan. Therefore, when the petitioner has been asserting that he got title to the property by virtue of the said registered sale deed, dated 10.11.2017, and when he has constructed the said commercial complex as per the building permission and approved plan, the 2nd respondent is bound under law to ascertain whether the petitioner got title to the property or not in view of his specific denial that he has encroached on to the said property in his explanation and then pass final order to that effect and thereafter he has to follow the due process of law for taking further steps in this regard. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent did not pass any final order and did not take into consideration the 4 explanation offered by the petitioner. Therefore, without considering the explanation of the petitioner and making an inquiry on it and without ascertaining whether the petitioner got title to the property or not as asserted by him and without passing any final order on the said notice, the 2nd respondent is not justified in making an effort to demolish the said structure without following the due process of law.
Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent - Commissioner of Municipal Corporation to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued by him and make an inquiry as to whether the petitioner got title to the said property by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 10.11.2017 or not. The subsequent permission that was accorded to the petitioner to construct the said complex shall also be taken into consideration and then he has to pass final order to that effect according to law. Thereafter, he has to follow the due process of law in taking further steps. Till such inquiry is made and a final order is passed after considering the explanation of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is directed not to demolish the said commercial complex.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 21.12.2021 AKN 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No.30117 of 2021 Date: 21-12-2021 AKN