Deeti Suresh vs Danavath Radha Bai

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2622 Tel
Judgement Date : 22 September, 2023

Telangana High Court
Deeti Suresh vs Danavath Radha Bai on 22 September, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, N.V.Shravan Kumar
     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

                   WRIT APPEAL No.921 of 2023

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


       Mr. Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for the

appellant.

       Mr.    R.    Sushanth    Reddy,   learned   counsel    for

respondent No.1.

Ms. B. L. Kanakavalli, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, for respondent No.2.

Mr. M. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

3. In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of order dated 11.05.2023 by which the learned ::2::

Single Judge has disposed of W.P.No.13256 of 2023 preferred by respondent No.1 at the motion stage with a direction to respondent No.1/writ petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and the Deputy Commissioner has been directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1 as well as the appellant, who was arrayed as respondent No.5 in the writ petition, with regard to adjudication of the unauthorized constructions and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of four weeks.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant has not been heard. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has foreclosed the right of the municipal corporation to remove the unauthorized constructions raised by respondent No.1.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 did not dispute the fact that the aforesaid order has ::3::

been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, the appellant, who was arrayed as respondent No.5 in the writ petition, ought to have put to notice.

7. Therefore, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13256 of 2023 and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the writ petition afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 22.09.2023 ES