Deeti Suresh vs Danavath Radha Bai
2023 Latest Caselaw 2622 Tel

     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