Telangana High Court
Smt. Dasri Parameshwarit ... vs Nagur Rahul Reddy And 3 Others on 1 November, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
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.
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.
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.
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
