Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T.Khadar Basha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 September, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.29440 of 2022
JUDGMENT:-
1. Heard Sri S.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Municipal Administration for the respondent No.1, Sri N.Ranga
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3
and 4 and learned Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.5
to 7.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed for the following relief:-
"It is therefore prayed that, the Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 7 in trying to
dispossess the petitioner from the S.Nos.773 and 774-2
Kadiri Revenue Village admeasuring 0.37 ½ cents and to
demolish the compound wall and the shed of the rice mill
therein is arbitrary, illegal and irrational which is against
to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,
21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently
direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession
of the petitioner and enjoyment over the said property and
pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
3. On 12.09.2022, Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing
counsel for the respondents was granted time to seek
instructions, which have been received.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent No.2, Kadiri Municipality represented by its
Commissioner, Ananthapuram District now Sri Satya Sai
District, issued notice dated 11.08.2022 under Section 228 (1)
& (2) of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 to the effect
that the construction of the building was being raised without
permission from the Municipalities and was directed to submit
the explanation as to why action be not taken with respect to
such unauthorized constructions as also to stop the work. The
petitioner submitted reply on 16.08.2022 followed by another
reply/representation dated 18.08.2022, but without considering
the same the provisional order was confirmed on 03.09.2022,
mentioning that no proper and satisfactory reply was received
within time from the petitioner.
5. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing counsel on the basis
of instructions submits that the petitioner filed replies dated
16.08.2022 and 18.08.2022 which were received before passing
the order dated 03.09.2022 and it was due to some mistake that
in the order of confirmation it was mentioned that the reply was
not received within time, which is contrary to record.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is undisputed that
pursuant to the notice dated 11.08.2022 the petitioner filed
reply within the time granted but without considering the
petitioner's reply the order of confirmation has been passed
stating that the reply was not filed in time.
7. There is a statutory duty on the Commissioner under the
Municipal Corporation Act or the Municipalities Act, as the case
may be to consider the reply, if filed, and to pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law. The reply to the show cause
notice cannot be ignored otherwise there will be no meaning of
giving notice which is aimed at complying with the legal
provisions inconsonance with the principles of natural justice to
afford opportunity of hearing.
8. The impugned order dated 03.09.2022 is therefore
quashed and the writ petition is allowed in part with a direction
to the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders after considering the
petitioner's reply dated 16.08.2022 and 18.08.2022, within a
period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order, in accordance with law.
9. It is clarified that this Court has not made any
observation on the merits of the petitioner's case set up in his
reply. It is for the 2nd respondent to consider the same.
10. Under the circumstances and for the reasons mentioned
above, a cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the respondent No.2
to be paid within a period of one month from today, to the
Andhra Pradesh State High Court Legal Services Authority, High
Court Premises, Amaravati, failing which the Registrar General
of this Court shall initiate the proceedings for recovery of the
said amount from the 2nd respondent as arrears of land
revenue in accordance with law.
11. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,
shall also stand closed.
__________________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
Date: 16.09.2022
SCS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.29440 of 2022
Date: 16.09.2022
Scs
