Vishnumolakala Padmavathi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1035 AP

                                1




    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

                 Writ Petition No.4156 of 2021



ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing the

respondent No.2.

Sri K. Indraneel Babu, learned counsel for the

petitioners argued the matter at length. His essential

grievance at this stage can be reduced to one factor namely

that his clients/ the petitioners were not given an opportunity

of personal hearing to explain their case. Relying upon a

judgment pronounced in Civil Appeal No.1132 of 2011, the

learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners

should have been given an opportunity of personal hearing.

The other submissions made with regard to explanation

submitted etc., are dealt with in the latter part of the order. It

is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners are

poor villagers and as such they could not raise an issue or

request about personal hearing when the reply for show

cause was submitted. The learned counsel, therefore, submits

that the rules of natural justice were flouted and the

petitioners are entitled for an order.

In reply to this, Sri I. Koti Reddy, the learned Standing

Counsel submits that when the initial notice

dated 27.01.2020 was given, the petitioners approached this

Court and filed W.P.No.2607 of 2021. After hearing the

parties, this Court directed that the impugned notice should

be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioners were

given an opportunity to submit their explanation. Learned

Standing Counsel submits that pursuant thereto the

petitioners submitted their explanation and in the said

explanation, the petitioners did not enclose documents or

raise any issue about the title over the property. He further

pointed out from a reading of the notice that the petitioners

have also made an alternative prayer for allotment of

alternate site or for payment of compensation and also

referred to Section 98 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat

Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'). Learned Standing Counsel

also submits that the reliance on the judgment of the

Honourable Supreme Court is not correct, since the personal

hearing that was directed to be given was in the scheme that

was to be formulated. Thus, as far as the personal hearing is

concerned, the learned Standing Counsel submits that if

there are any disputed questions of fact or facts that need

explanation calling for a personal hearing would be necessary

to determine the issue. Relying upon the reply to the show

cause notice, he states that as there is no issue raised that

mandates a personal hearing, the procedure adopted by the

respondents is correct.

This Court, after hearing, both the learned counsel,

noticed that a writ petition was filed against the notice dated

27.01.2021, wherein an opportunity was given to the

petitioners to raise all the legal and factual pleas that they

have in their favour. It is very clearly mentioned in the order.

A time frame of seven (7) days was given to the petitioners to

submit their written explanation along with legal and factual

pleas that were available. After the order was passed, this

Court notices that the petitioners have submitted a very brief

explanation stating that from 1989 they have been residing in

the disputed site. They did not state how they have acquired

the property nor did they mention how the title to the

property passed on to them. They merely stated that they are

living in the property since 1989 and that they do not have

any other property to live in, if they are evicted. Lastly, they

stated that they should be given alternative site and also

compensation under Section 98 (2) of the Act. A prima facie

reading of this notice reveals that the petitioners have had the

benefit of legal advice before this reply was issued. The

alternative pleas that are raised clearly show that they availed

the benefit of legal advice or that they are legally literate. As

far as the other grievance of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the petitioners should have been given a

personal hearing is concerned, this Court has to agree with

what is stated by the learned Standing Counsel. If there is an

issue, which needs clarity or an explanation calling for a

personal hearing, then may be necessary. It is true that the

Honourable Supreme Court directed that a scheme should be

formulated and in that scheme a brief personal hearing made

mandate. The fact remains that the said scheme has not been

implemented so far. That is a different issue. Rules of natural

justice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a

case. They cannot be put in a strait jacket formula. In the

case on hand, the petitioners have approached this Court in

W.P.No.2607 of 2021 and they were given an opportunity of

raising all the legal and factual pleas available to them. After

the said order was passed, the petitioners have submitted an

explanation. In that explanation, as rightly pointed out by the

learned Standing Counsel, the petitioners have not raised any

issue about their title or the manner in which the title was

acquired. Since the petitioners did not raise a legal or factual

dispute requiring personal hearing, in the opinion of this

Court holding a personal hearing is only be an exercise in

futility. The available records indicate that the petitioners did

not trace their title with certainty to any document or to any

lawful source. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the

opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to one more

option as prayed for including a personal hearing.

The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed at the stage of

admission itself. There shall be no costs. Consequently,

miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

After the order is dictated, the learned counsel for the

petitioners prayed that the petitioners should be given atleast

four weeks time to vacate the premises. The learned Standing

Counsel objects and states that a public project namely a

road is being held up and that the entire work has been

completed except for this little stretch, where the petitioners

are residing. Balancing the interests of both the parties, this

Court is of the opinion that the request of the learned counsel

for the petitioners can be agreed to, but they are given a

period of two (2) weeks from today to peacefully vacate the

premises, failing which the respondents can take over

possession.

________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU Date: 22.02.2021 GR