K. Balraj Goud vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2103 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

           WRIT PETITION No.24981 of 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of

respondents in trying to demolish and dispossess the

petitioners under the guise of acquiring the subject

properties bearing Municipal Nos.1-5/33, 1-5/34, 1-5/35 and

1-7/1 and Indian Oil Fuel Station (My Filling Station)

situated at Puppalaguda village, Manikonda Municipality,

Ranga Reddy District without initiating land acquisition

proceedings as being violative of Article 14 and 300A of the

Constitution of India.

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Municipal

Administration and Urban Development appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned Government Pleader for

respondent No.3, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, Sri G.Narender

Reddy, learned Standing appearing for respondent No.5 and

Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for

respondent No.6, and perused the record. With their

consent, the present Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and

disposal at the admission stage.

3. Petitioners contend that they are the owners of the

subject properties situated at Puppalaguda village; that the

respondent authorities have made a marking on the

properties belonging to the petitioners including the Fuel

Station belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of road

widening; that the respondent authorities are taking steps to

dispossess the petitioners from their land without following

due process of law inasmuch as no notice of acquisition of

land has been issued by the respondent authorities.

4. Petitioners further contend that, apprehending that

the respondent authorities would dispossess the petitioners

from their subject property by laying a road as per markings

made on their properties, they had approached the

respondent authorities and submitted a representation on

22-12-2022 objecting to the proposal of acquiring the land

belonging to petitioners without following due process of

law.

5. Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 as well as Sri

G.Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent No.5 submits that the acknowledgment

affixed on the representation of the petitioners does not

show the date of its submission as well as to which

authorities the said representation is submitted.

6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that

petitioners had made construction without obtaining

permission. However, learned Standing Counsel appearing

on behalf of respondent No.6 does not dispute that even if

the petitioners had made any construction without obtaining

permission, the Authorities are required to follow due

process of law and action can be taken by the Authorities

only after putting the petitioners on notice and affording

sufficient opportunity to offer explanation.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

contesting respondents however submits that there was a

water channel from Gandipet to Asifnagar Filter bed; that

the petitioners had encroached on to the land in violation of

G.O.Ms.No.111 Municipal Administration and Urban

Development (II) dated 08-03-1996 and made constructions;

and as such, the Authorities are entitled to take further

action.

8. I have taken note of respective contentions.

9. At the outset, even if the petitioners have made any

constructions in violation of G.O.Ms.No.111 dated

08-03-1996 or without obtaining any permission, the

Authorities are required to follow due process of law by

issuing a notice to the petitioners with regard to the alleged

violation, to which the petitioners would be entitled to offer

their explanation by submitting relevant documents thereto

in support of their claim.

10. It is trite law that even an encroacher is required to

be put on notice before being dispossessed. A Division

Bench of this Court (to which I was a member), in

M/s.Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And others Vs.

The Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure

Corporation and others 1, reiterated this principle while

taking note of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Yeshwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh 2. The relevant

observations of the Apex Court are as under:

"In India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a court".

11. In the light of the above position of laws, though the

respondent authorities claim that the petitioners are

encroachers and have made construction in violation of the

provisions of the Act as well as G.O.Ms.No.111, the

respondent authorities cannot by themselves take the law

into their hands without putting the petitioners on notice,

rather the respondent authorities are under an obligation to

follow due process of law.

12. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the

respondent authorities should be directed to follow due

process of law before taking any further action including

acquiring of land of the petitioners, if any, required for the

Judgment dt.24-08-2023 in W.A.No.697 of 2023

AIR 1968 SC 620

purpose of road widening as being claimed by the

petitioners.

13. Subject to the above observations and directions, the

Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

14. It is needless to mention that this Court has not

expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

15. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall

stand closed.

___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date : 08-09-2023.

Vsv