THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.449 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. A.L.Raju, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Shreyas Reddy, learned counsel for respondent
No.1.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing W.P.No.7406 of 2020 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.
3. Respondent No.1 filed the related writ petition questioning the inaction of respondents No.2 to 4 in taking action against the alleged unauthorised construction made by the appellant in the subject land. Alleged unauthorised construction pertains to land in GHMC No.8-1- 284/OU/713/3 admeasuring 130 square yards or 108.69 square metres situated at Shaikpet, Hyderabad. 2
4. From a perusal of the order dated 08.02.2022, it is seen that according to respondent No.1, he is the owner and possessor of Plot No.713/4 forming part of Survey Nos.320/1/A, 320/1/AA, 320/2, 324 and 326/1 & 2, Ward No.8, Block No.1, Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad District. Appellant had encroached into his land and had commenced illegal construction. Representation submitted by respondent No.1 on 10.07.2019 against illegal construction did not elicit any response. Therefore, the writ petition was filed.
5. Learned Standing Counsel who had appeared on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 made a submission before the Court that the construction made by the appellant is an illegal construction which is liable to be demolished.
6. Learned Single Judge on the basis of the aforesaid submission disposed of the writ petition by directing the official respondents to take action against the unauthorised/illegal construction made by the appellant forthwith in accordance with law.
3
7. On going through the entire order dated 08.02.2022, we do not find that learned Single Judge had recorded service of notice upon the appellant or filing of any counter affidavit by the appellant.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that because of COVID-19 situation, appellant being respondent No.4 in the writ petition had submitted vakalat on 20.07.2020 and thereafter filed counter affidavit online on 10.11.2020.
9. If that be the position, we are of the view that the counter affidavit filed by the appellant ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. Without considering the stand of the appellant, learned Single Judge directed the official respondents to take action against the "unauthorised/illegal constructions" made by the appellant.
10. As a matter of fact, we find that in the order dated 08.02.2022, there is no mention about the name of learned counsel representing the appellant.
4
11. An order directing demolition of structure is a drastic one and should be passed only after hearing the affected person. Without hearing the affected person, an order of demolition or eviction should not be passed.
12. In view of above, we set aside the order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7406 of 2020 and remand the matter back to the file of the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge having the roster shall hear W.P.No.7406 of 2020 afresh. Parties are directed to maintain status quo till the matter is taken up by learned Single Judge who may thereafter pass such order as may be deemed fit and proper.
13. This disposes of the writ appeal.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 01.11.2022 vs