THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
I.A.No.1 of 2022
in/and
WRIT APPEAL No.386 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. P.Narotham Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant (party-in-person) and Mr. Mummaneni Srinivasa
Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1. We have also
heard Ms. Borra Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department for respondent No.2.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.22128 of 2020 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.
3. Appellant has also filed an interlocutory application, being I.A.No.1 of 2022, for condoning the delay of 36 days in filing the writ appeal.
2
4. Respondent No.1 has filed counter affidavit objecting to the prayer for condoning the delay wherein it is contended that the delay is not 36 days, but is of 543 days.
5. Be that as it may, we find from the record that respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition with the grievance that Kakatiya Urban Development Authority (KUDA) was not taking any action on her representation dated 18.11.2020 for cancelling LRS proceedings dated 15.10.2020 granted in favour of the appellant (respondent No.3 in the writ petition) in respect of property bearing House No.1-1-114/3/A, Prashanth Nagar, Waddepally, Warangal (hereinafter referred to as, 'the subject property').
6. It was contended before the learned Single Judge by respondent No.1 that though the subject property is entangled in a series of litigation, nonetheless, KUDA had granted LRS proceedings in favour of the appellant. Representation submitted for cancellation of the same was not being attended to.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for KUDA submitted before the learned Single Judge that because of various 3 reasons, including the pandemic situation, the representation could not be disposed of.
8. Having regard to the above, learned Single Judge vide the order dated 08.12.2020 disposed of the writ petition in the following manner:
In view of the above made submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent - the Vice Chairman, KUDA, Hanamkonda, to consider the representation, dated 18.11.2020, submitted by the petitioner and pass necessary orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that before passing any orders, the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 shall be put on notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing. A copy of the order passed by the respondent No.2 shall be communicated to the parties.
9. From the above, we find that Vice Chairman of KUDA has been directed to consider the representation of respondent No.1 dated 18.11.2020 after putting on notice appellant and respondent No.1 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to them and thereafter to pass necessary order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks.
4
10. Though a view may be taken that learned Single Judge ought to have issued notice to the appellant before disposing of the writ petition, nonetheless, having regard to the final relief granted, we are of the view that interest of the appellant was duly protected by the learned Single Judge.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was suppression of material facts by respondent No.1 inasmuch as earlier writ petition filed by her was dismissed by this Court. This was suppressed. On the other hand, appellant has right, title and interest over the subject property and therefore KUDA was fully justified in issuing LRS proceedings dated 15.10.2020.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, however, submits that following the order dated 08.12.2020, KUDA had issued notice to both the appellant as well as respondent No.1 and thereafter had passed an order dated 29.07.2022 cancelling LRS dated 15.10.2020.
13. On due consideration, we are of the view that learned Single Judge had only directed KUDA to consider the 5 representation of respondent No.1 but ensured that appellant should also be heard before a decision thereon was taken. Now after hearing the parties, KUDA has passed a fresh order giving rise to a fresh cause of action. It is open to the aggrieved person to assail such order passed by KUDA in an appropriate proceeding. We express no opinion on merit.
14. Therefore, both on the point of limitation as well as on merit, we do not find any good reason to entertain the appeal.
15. I.A.No.1 of 2022 and the writ appeal are accordingly dismissed.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 19.01.2023 vs